Message Board Archive for Module 1 - Selfawareness

Topic

Replies

Nowhere in Africa

0

"Nowhere in Africa and problem for jewish Identity"

3

Nowhere in Africa

The Clay Bird

Nowhere in Africa

MADRASAH

Bigotry in the Clay Bird

0

the clay bird

Femininity in the Clay Bird

Hindu and Islamic relationships

cultural pluralism

Masculinity in the Clay Bird

the madrassa and poverty

Religious Harmony in "the Clay Bird"

Nowhere in Africa

Feminism, duet and religion

Patriarchal Society

Realization in the film

Liberation war in the claybird

Clay Bird on the basis of Religion theme

Secularism- THE CLAY BIRD

Religion&Masculinity within "The Clay Bird"

Femininity in the Claybird

Islam in The Claybird

the clay bird discussion

Masculinity- The Clay Bird

Masculinity in the clay pigeon

the duet in the clay bird

The Clay Bird and Masculinity

Masculinity in the Clay Bird

Author

Message

Polly_ie
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
May 2006

We all have an opinion of the "other" and when we are out of our "own environment" we are the other. This movie was very sad because Walter and Jettel leave Germany to start a new life - being Jewish they have to flee Germany but when they get to Kenya they are still different and because of this they find it hard to settle there. It is hard to settle in a new place because you tend to glorify your homeland but if you were to go home - often it isn't the way that you imagined. The children find it easier to settle in - but this is usually the case as children don't tend to have problems talking to eachother it is adults who see problems quicker and are quicker to identify differences. The family have to overcome many challenges - especially when you consider that they come from monied class in Germany and in Africa they are the labouring class. The title for me feels like it means that they are no where in Africa - they have no where to go and no where to return to. Being Jews they can't return home but in Africa they are also out of place. However by the end of the movie they are all somewhere in Africa and Africa has become part of them.

Author

Message

Md. Jakir Hossen Member

Posts: 5
Registered:
Apr 2006

I think one of the striking themes of the movie “Nowhere in Africa” is the problem for Jewish Identity which shocked me very much and I would like to focus on this point. We see in the film that during the Second World War Walter and his family along with his wife Jettel and their daughter Regina had to flee from their mother land Germany to save their lives from the brutality of Hitlar and his Nazi regime and take shelter as refugee in an African country-Kenya, which was culturally different from Germany. They had to struggle hard to be adapted with new culture, traditions and environment of Africa (Kenya). They (Walter & Jettel) had to leave their parents and friends in Germany and they were anxious about what would happen to them. In my opinion, all these sufferings happened to them (Walter & his family) because of their Jewish identity. We see in the film that even in Kenya, a Mr. Morrison did not agree to give Walter a job in his farm because Walter was a Jew. Moreover, in the refugee school in Nairobi we see that during the assembly Regina and some other Jew students were separated and forbidden to take part in the prayer because they were Jews. They don’t have any national anthem too. They are separated from others, standing at a side silently and not taking part in the prayer. This point of the film shocked me too much. Can you imagine how shocking is this for them? Is not it for their Jewish identity? If you were in their position then what would you feel? Is it their offence to be born as a Jew? Have they any control to be born as Muslim, Jew, Christian (Catholic/Protestant) and so on? I don’t know the answers. I just wonder why people at this modern (or may be ultramodern) era discriminate against religious, national, class, race, gender identity? Would you please give your opinion?

Najmul Ahmed
Member

Posts: 4
Registered:
Apr 2006

I agree with Jakir that Jewish identity was the main theme of the film "Nowhere in Africa". In Kenya, Mr. Morrison neglected Walter but the Kenyan was very helpful. They never neglect Walter's family. Especially, Owuor was a very nice character. He loved the little girl Rejina very much. He was a cook but he was more than like a cook. However, the Nazi and the Christian neglected the Jewish. We saw in the film that they left Germany because of the brutality of Hitlar and his Nazi regime. However, in Kenya, Rejina and her some classmates were also neglected by their teachers and some classmates. On the other side, Rejina was forbidden to play with the black children by her mother. It was also a racial discrimination.

Yes, it is very shocking to me. If I was in that position I do not know what I would feel, but it was very sensitive to me.

shorna
Member

Posts: 3
Registered:
May 2006

I agree with Jakir because Jews identity was the main problem in the movie No where in Africa. The period of the movie was before and during Second World War. Nazi thought that Jews were not German. They killed the Jews. And for this reason Rezina and her family fled to Africa. When Rezina went to school teacher said that those who were German came out and stand separately. In spite of being German they faced lot of problems because they were Jews.

Farhana 99
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
May 2006

I think you are right to judge the hatred towards jews. I was very shocked to see that for being jew a family (Walter,Jettle,&Regina)had to abandoned their country.At the very first Time when they went to Rongai Jettle couldn't adjust with new atmosphere& she was homesick for her country .But at the end of the movie we see that Jettle had become emotinal for black people.Although they were jews they were loved by the black people and loved black people.In this movie we see that onecountry(Jermany) wanted to extinguish jews and another country (Africa) saved their life.

Author

Message

Annica
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

I thought a striking theme of the movie “Nowhere in Africa” was the idea of home and how it can be defined. The family leaves their home, Germany, a country in which they are being prosecuted. Their original home has vanished, they can’t go back there. Africa then becomes their new home, but for each of the characters in a different kind of way. The woman at first doesn’t feel very much at home there, she misses her friends and her family in Germany. She doesn’t even unpack all of her things in the beginning. She can’t imagine living on a farm in this country that is so different from where she comes from. However, her attitude changes a lot during the film, and in the end she doesn’t want to leave Africa. She has acclimatized herself very well and certainly feels like Africa has become her new home. Her husband sees Africa as a place of refuge but when the war is over, he wants to go back to Germany and help his home country to make a new start. He says that he would always feel like a foreigner in Africa. His friend, another German Jew, can’t understand why he wants to go back. He says he doesn’t have to do anything with this country anymore, which I think is a quite understandable reaction. He can’t identify Germany with “home” anymore. The daughter of the couple says she can’t remember Germany very well; she basically grows up in Africa. I believe that Africa feels very much like home to her, much more than Germany does.
So what is home then? Is it the country you were born in, the place where you grow up or the place where your family and friends live? Can a country in which you’re being prosecuted be called “home”? There is certainly no single definition of home. I suppose home can be a mixture of many definitions and you have to come up with your very own…

Kamal Hossain
Member

Posts: 4
Registered:
Apr 2006

In the film”Nowhere in Africa” the have no house. They are refugees in Africa. They leave Germany in 1933. They are Jews, for this reason Nazis oppress them and compel to leave Germany. In the writing of Annica, she wants to know what is home and actually the couple home or not.

Actually home means not only a building but also a place where man feels comfortable mental satisfaction and not very far from her\his relatives, parents or other kins. Man always comfortable with her\his natives, own culture. All these perspectives the meaning of home is clear to us. In the film the couples have no peace in mind, they feel uncomfortable and they are very far their relatives and natives (leaving Germany they lived Africa). At first they are not adjust with the culture of Africa. Having no other way Walter wants to live there but Jettel doesn’t agree to live there. But we see that after some years Jettel adjust with the new place, neighbors.

Interaction with them then she feels comfortable and the place seems to him home. For this reason after the end of Second World War Walter wants to go back Germany but Jettel doesn’t want to leave Africa. Their child Regina also likes the place because she passed her childhood there not to leave the place. The place is like as home to them.

Shabiha Jahan
Member

Posts: 3
Registered:
May 2006

By reading Annica’s comment about home according to the movie “Nowhere in Africa” it is clear to me that the home is a changing concept. The meaning of home varies from person to person and situation to situation. Normally we can say that a place in where a person borns is his home. But if the situation of that place becomes unsafe for him and he does not feel secured there then he must go another place for shelter and in course of time that place may become as his new home. So the birthplace always can not remain as home for a person if there circumstances would not help him to live there with allover security. Again, we can say that a child may accept a place as his/her own home where he/she grows up. In the film we can see that Regina does not want to return Germany as she grows up in Africa and feels at home there than her birthplace Germany. Then we can say that the concept of home is deeply related with concept of adjustment, I mean that a new place can become as a home for a person when he can totally adjust with all the situations/environments of that place. In the film we see that Jettel at first can not accept Africa as her new home but in course of time when she can adjust with the new environment of Africa she accepts it as her own home and does not want to go back Germany. For a place to be home or not may depend on different views of different persons as we see that Walter always think Africa as a place of refugee and he wants to go back Germany to help his home country to make a new start but his friend does not want to go back because he can not find out any logic to return there. So, it is clearly proved that the concept of home is changeable and differs from person to person and situation to situation.

Author

Message

0340839
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

I thought it was interesting how women were protrayed in the film. Throughout, they seem to have very limited role's to play in public life and are extremely restricted. Yet appear to be deeply respected aswell, judging from the lyrics sang by the old man in the song towards the end of the film(the duet type song with the younger woman).

I find it strange that such respect is associated with such entrapment.

Martha
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
Apr 2006

I disagree. I think that although Anu's mother was restricted it was due to her husband's strict religious beliefs, as she was free to play when they first married, and not society. That fact that the the boat taxi man commented on how restricted she was shows that it was not common in that society for women to be so restricted.

AnnaT
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
Apr 2006

I agree that Anu's mother was restricted mostly due to her husbands religious beliefs. I think that in this film we are witnessing a change in attitudes to women and a change in society as a whole but it is still very much in transition. Due to this transition, Anu's mother is unlucky enough to be in a marriage where she cannot be free. It is not just us, the viewer who see this as wrong however, her husbands brother clearly disagrees with how she is treated and the 'taxi-man' on the boat (as you have pointed out) makes no secret of the fact that it is not as common now (1960's) for a woman to be treated like that or for a man to behave like that.

Halima Khatun
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
May 2006

I disagree that Anu's mother was restricted. The period of the film was 1970-71. When she married, she was a little girl, so she played with Milon. That time she was free. After when Kazi went to Istema (religious occasion) she went to hear the song though she was forbidden by her husband. After that when the Pakistani army attacked she left her husband.

Farhana
Member

Posts: 3
Registered:
May 2006

Kazi was a dogmatic man. He maintained the rules of Islam drastically. He was backdated in his thinking. Such as he practiced of Homeopathy
In the movie “The Clay Bird” we see that after some event Kazi was going through a crisis. He felt in a confusing situation about his identity.
In this movie the whole family faced such a situation which was unknown to them .And this situation brought a great & significant change in their thinking.

Najmul Ahmed
Member

Posts: 4
Registered:
Apr 2006

I think the women in the film “The Clay Bird” were not restricted. We saw Anu’s mother was restricted by her husband but she went to hear the song and the other woman influenced her. Therefore, the other women are not restricted.

Author

Message

Humayun
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
May 2006

As a film ‘Nowhere in Africa’ is a narrative, attractive, fantastic, and melodious in the world of films. But I think something exception from that of the above. To my mind there is a beautiful similarity between our course (Self Awareness and Images of the “other” in Asian and European cultures) and the film ‘Nowhere in Africa’. I know some body will be astonished or surprised of my combination of the particular course and the film(Nowhere in Africa). In support to my speech I would like to focus some points which mentally force me to do so-

(1) Cultural Identity- It is greatly showed in the film that culturally the German Ian and the Africans are difference

(2) Religious Identity- In terms of religious identity Jews are seen in a difference manner in the film. The effect of the world war two upon the Jews also focused in the film, which tell us about the cruelty of Hitler about the specific Religion.

(3) The Identity of Race- Example: white and black, or white and Negro. In the film it is also mostly focused, the difference between white color people and the black color people (culturally, literally, habitually and in other terms).

(4) Class Identity-If I take the Hero(Walter) and the Heroine(Jettel) as the higher class, then it would be clear that the Negro especially the Nairobi an are the example of the lower class. Because they(white) are introduced themselves in Rongai as the foreigners but dominated the particular area’s negro peoples.

(5) National Identity- In question of national identity, here Walter, Jettel, Regina (little Memsaab) have been focused as the German and Owuor as the negro or the African.

After the above discussion I think each and every body will agree with my opinion, Because our course(312) “Self Awareness” also narrates mainly the above points and makes us aware about the difference types culture in the world.

So, personally I don’t find any dissimilarity between the film and the course(312). The film “Nowhere in Africa” may be the practical model of our course. Thus films should be introduced with each course. I appreciate this way of learning much.

Author

Message

Md.Aktteruzzaman_du
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
May 2006

In this film we introduce a educational institution which name is madrasah.Now i tell some thing about madrasah.SO that you can get a clear concept about madrasah.An arabic word for school .It is a system of education which provides basic knowledge in arabic language and islam religion and general education as its curriculam.It offers 5 level of education.

1.Ibtadayee.
2.Dhakhil.
3.Alim.
4.Fazil.
5.Kamil.
The old scheme of madrasah education was introduced in 1780 with the establishment of calcutta madrasah.The madrasah education system has been continuing with some modification according to the demand of the time.now including modern science,commersc,art's etc.The government has been providing government grantsto the teachers and employs of the non-government madrasahs like other non-government education institution.
Thanks

Author

Message

MIR MD TAJUL ISLAM
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
May 2006

From the very beginning we are addressed with bigotry in the film clay bird. In this film Kazi is the clear example of bigotry. He is a religious person but some of his principles drive him to a wick person. He thinks that Islamic education is must for every muslim and so he sends his son, Anu, to a distant Madrashah to learn Islamic education although he is a immature boy. In such a time the companionship of parents is very important for a child’s future mental structure but here it is ignored.

In the Madrashah it is found that when Rokon is terribly sick and needs proper treatment, he is pressured to plunge in the pond in a cold winter morning. It might have killed him. It is believed that in such way ghosts or wick souls can be driven away. How wonder!

Kazi is a homeopathy doctor. He thinks that homeopathy should be used for Muslim. And he has a bad blood for allopathic treatment although it is scientific and safe way of treatment. His bigotry drives his daughter, Asma, to a tragic death as he refused to take allopathic medicine when he fails to heal his daughter from fever.

Boat races, folk song, sewing clothes, eating sweets from Hindu celebration are important parts of Bengali culture. It does not matter who practice because it is ubiquitous for all Bengali. But in the film, according to Kazi, they are done only by people of Hindu culture or “Hinduani works”. According to him, they should not be practiced by the religious Muslims.

When the military people start to kill the innocent people for no reason, it was supported by the so called religious Muslims. They mention them as their brother and think that they have come to help them. They believe that a Muslim can not kill another Muslim person. They have no value for liberation. They like very much to be ruled by the alien country as that is a Muslim country.

In this film we can see that the Muslims were submerged in prejudice. But here we can also find out that both Muslims and Hindus have a good relation with each other. They come to help when help is needed. We can see this picture when Kazi gave money to that Hindu ferryman.

But I think there’s a mysterious thing which I can’t explain. Who gave sweets to Rokon and why he behaved so strangely when he is thought to be captured by ghosts?

This film is made in the context of 1970 decades. Then it was a backdated country. The outlooks of the people of this were not logical. The main reason was that most of the people of this country were uneducated. They were not aware of people’s basic rights. They knew only about the rules of religion but not the demands of the hearts. They saw everything through the frame of religion.

I am a citizen of Bangladesh. It is a matter of joy that now 85% of our people are educated and they are aware of human rights. They know that religion is not a narrow thing. It is a way of life but not everything of a life. Religion is for establishing people’s right but not to violent the basic rights of people. Religion is for widening the outlooks of people but not to keep people in a limited cage.

Author

Message

0355836
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
May 2006

In the film the clay bird, the differences between men and women, masculinity and feminity are very much highlighted. In a way it is as if women are controlled by the men in their lives. In the film Anu's father practices medicine and he refers to his wife as Anu's mother.She did not want to go to a 'concert' because she was afraid that her husband would be angry. I got the impression that women are there to provide for their husbands.

At the end of the film we hear a duet between a man and a women.This is a fundamental part of the play. It sums up the different worlds of men and women. Women are referred to as "the vessels of love", the start of life. Their place is in the home while men are for the outside world of sport , politics and religion.

Author

Message

Caitlin736
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
Apr 2006

I was looking at the femininty in the film, and I noticed that it was the mother who was probably the most restricted. We didn't even learn her name until the last 15-20 min of the movie. She wasn't much of an individual because she was continually called "Anu's Mother". The women were made to eat seperatly from the men and even when Anu's sister died, the women were mourning in a whole other location. At the very beginning when Anu was getting his hair cut the old man said to him that only women and impious people had long hair, thus calling women impious with their, as he says, "impious ways". I do agree that it wasn't until her husband became a muslim that she had to be restricted and reserved. I loved it at the end how she told her husband off, how she threatens to leave and in the end, she does follow through with leaving. It was almost as if she was liberated from all of the restrictions that her husband had placed on her for the last 10-15yrs of her life. She seemed to embrace her femininity and realized that she did not need a man to protect her and her child; she could do it on her own.

Charlotte
Member

Posts: 5
Registered:
Apr 2006

A couple of things that striked me in the movie, is not that much the restriction of Anu's mother's freedom, but how she made herself free in her own sense, all through the movie.
I don't see such a gap in her behaviour between the begining of the movie and the end when she actually leaves her husband.
First, the way she spoke to her husband all the way through shows that she has some character, a mind of her own and that she is not afraid to show it. She was pretty often telling her husband off. She also defied him by taking the medication from her husband's brother, or when she goes to the concert while he is in pilgrimage.
Secondly, when she leaves at the end is the one moment when you might see she has some love - or at least tenderness and respect - for her husband. She does not go without having begged him to come along.
As for being called Anu's mother, her husband is also called Anu's father - though he is given his own name as well. My wonder was that both - within the family - were defined by their children - and more specifically their son - and never by their being a couple (Why is she called "Anu's mother" and not "Kazi's wife"?)
So I don't think there is exactly a "realization" of her ability to be independent : I think she has always been in her own way. In the end, she runs away from her village because she has to, because she needs to protect her child and herself, and if it means losing her husband along the way, that's just a casualty, rather than the taking of freedom and independence.

In that sense, she is a very feminist character right from the begining, and not just at the end. I don't mean to deny there is oppression of women in the movie. But I think the movie was more about how women manage to keep their freedom and independence - even under oppressive patriarchy - rather than just a display of how women are oppressed.

Geraldine kinirons
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
Apr 2006

Representation of femininity in The Clay Bird

I have viewed The Clay Bird and would like to discuss the representation of femininity in the film. My initial reaction in relation to this is the fact that there are very few women featured throughout the film. The main female character, Anu’s mother, appears to take a secondary role in relation to family decisions, education and religious instruction and I will outline my views under these headings. The bird is used as a metaphor for the representation of women as passive, gentle, obedient subjects, which in this situation ends with the tragic death of Anu’s young sister. Ironically it is this unfortunate event that empowers Anu’s mother to take a stand against her husband’s wishes.
In the home Kazri makes all the family decisions without input from his wife. He restricts Anu’s freedom and blames his brother and his wife for “…ruining his boy”. Anu’s mother’s occupation in the home is confined to trivial activities such as embroidery and knitting and her husband dismisses these and says “Allah forgive us”. It appears that her entire life is spent within the house and is reluctant to go to the concert in case her husband is angry. Her view of the outside world is restricted to what she can see through the barred window of her home. In the scenes of the Eid celebrations and the funeral of the young girl the women remain inside the house. It is in relation to this that I view the metaphorical use of the bird in the words of the song “bird trapped in the body’s cage” with his feet “ bound by worldly chains”.
Kazri sends Anu to the madrasa. Anu’s mother is not involved with this decision. There is a notable absence of girl pupils and women instructors at the school. Anu’s mother does not appear to be involved with the religious instruction of her children. Kazri is often seen reading from the Koran and goes to the pilgrimage alone.
The most dramatic representation of women’s subordinate role in the society is seen when the young girl becomes ill. Kazri does not allow his wife to give their daughter the medicine and she has to watch her die. Following this, the mother is so terrified of the danger to Anu that she refuses to stay with her husband when the army advances on the village.
The representation of femininity takes on a change at the end of the film and the bird gains her freedom to fly.

kateoconnor
Member

Posts: 3
Registered:
Apr 2006

The representation of the female characters was interesting for me in the film. I was struck particularly by Ashyma (correct me if that is the incorrect name), she was addressed as Anu's mother by her husband, therefore unconsciously perhaps, that was her primary role and main trait according to her husband. However Milon, the uncle, addressed her by her first name - Ashyma, seeing her as an individual in her own right. There was further ideology enforced by all of this, as Milon was portrayed as being "new age" perhaps in his beliefs, particularly by showing his interest in and respect for other religions i.e. The Hindus. Milon comes out as a fairly likeable character, and the fact that he respects Ashyma as an individual would suggest that the writers and producers of the film favoured a more liberal attitude over the strict religious attitude of the father. If you enjoyed this aspect of the film, then I'd recommend Syriana, which deals with this in terms of Iraq.

Caitlin736
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
Apr 2006

I would just like to defend what I posted earlier. While I do see your point of view, I feel that we are looking at the femininity in the movie from two different forms of Feminism. I was concentrating on looking at the film from the Radical Fem. perspective. Radical feminism is the struggle that women in an oppressed group face as they try to gain their own liberation. The emphasis is on difference. I do feel that Anu's mother did have her own mind and independence (as seen when she attends the concert without her husband's permission), but I feel that she gained that by liberating herself from the patriarchal society that she lived in. Anu's mother's femininity can be looked at from the Liberal Fem. point of view as well, but her struggle for liberation is seen as more a struggle for equality instead of difference. I do feel that one can look at the film from both perspectives and I do agree with what you said about the film, but I just feel that we were looking at it from different angles.

Charlotte
Member

Posts: 5
Registered:
Apr 2006

I'm sorry but I don't really understand. Are you saying that Ayesha is a radical feminist character when you say her struggle was for equality instead of difference?

Geraldine kinirons
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
Apr 2006

I accept what you are saying about Ayesha seeking equality rather than difference, but I can see a severe struggle in this and asmire Ayesha's strength in achieving a great deal in the end. How has this situation changed in the last years considering this film was set in the 1970's.

Md. Jakir Hossen
Member

Posts: 5
Registered:
Apr 2006

I have read some messages about femininity in ''The clay bird'' where our friends have written about the topics which seems to me to be improper from the Bangladeshi cultural point of view. In the writing of Caitlin 736 has pointed out that Ayesha (Anu's mother) was addressed as Anu's mother by her husband (Kazi) throughout the film which seems to be very odd to the writer. Some one can take it as a matter of insult to women. But the reality is that addressing wife after her eldest child's name (such as Anu's mother in the film) by her husband and vice versa is an old tradition in our (Bangladeshi) culture. There is nothing wrong or negative in it. It does not mean that who she\he addresses his \ her female or male counterpart after (eldest) child's name does not respect her \ him. In fact, the reality is that there is a strong familial bond around the child. The child is at the centre of family in our culture. So, I would like to say that there is no dishonorable sense in addressing Ayesha as Anu's mother by her husband (Kazi).

Farhana
Member

Posts: 3
Registered:
May 2006

I agree with you in some point of view. But in another point of view you didn’t got the main theme. The calling “Anu’s mother” was not insulting for her, because in our society women feel proud to be mother. So when she was called “Anu’s mother” she had not been disheartened. She considered it as her significant identity.
You have noticed that when Anu’s hair was getting cut, the old man compared his hair with impious people and women. But it is very normal for woman. As Anu was a boy and he was supposed to be a ideal man, that’s why the old man told him the following words.

Author

Message

Neil Ryan
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

It was very interesting to see the interaction of the Hindu and Islamic faiths within the same family. The passionate and colourful Hindu celebrations contast starkly with the rigid belief and quiet dignity of the islamic faith. This contrast obviously comes into conflict, most notably when considering Anu. His father does not want him eating sweets and celebrating Hinduism while his uncle spoils him to a degree. Does anyone believe that the relationship between the brothers is an accurate portrayal of Islam-Hindu relations?

ferdousidalia
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
May 2006

People follow some common culture in Bangladesh .This culture is popular with both Hindu and Muslim people. People from different religious groups participate in and tolerate this culture. Anu went to mela and his uncle's Hindu friends came to their house at the time of Eid festival. There exists a religious harmony among the people. People of different religious groups used to live together with tolerance and harmony for hundreds of years. In fact, there was no conflict among the people before the colonial period.

Kamal Hossain
Member

Posts: 4
Registered:
Apr 2006

In the film "The Clay Bird”, we see that there is a good relationship between Hindus & Muslims which is one of the culture of Bangladesh. Historically Bangladesh is a peace loving country. They live together in a society, they participate each other's religious celebration. They behave friendly each other’s. In the film, we see that Anu & his uncle (Milon) participate in a Hindu religious celebration. There are also some religious extremist who do not tolerate other's religious activities. However, this does not prove that they are enemy with each other’s. In the film, Kazi proved us as a religious extremist but he is no enemy of Hindus. We saw that one of the Hindu came to Kazi for the treatment of his son. His son sufferings from tonsil & Kazi gave him medicine cordially.

Sakiba
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

Actually before colonial period there was harmony between Hindu and Muslim people. After colonial period this harmony was lost. In this film it was a impact of political reason. Because some people thought that to go against Pakistan is the against of Islam. For an example Anu's father used to wear shirt pant but somehow he had been changed. So went to see worship and eat their sweet seems to go against Pakistan. But after 1971-war this mentality has been changed. This relationship between the brothers is not an accurate portrayal of Hindu Muslim relation and this relation portrayed the conflict of freedom.

shorna
Member

Posts: 3
Registered:
May 2006

In the film “The Clay Bird “ The two brothers did not faith in two religion. Milon believes also in Islam religion but he saw to worsip. It does not mean that he believed in Hindu religion. The harmony of various religion were exist in Bangladesh before British period. Anu”s father thought that to go against Pakistan, it is the against of Islam. But Islam and Pakistan are totally different issue. He did not understand.

Farhana
Member

Posts: 3
Registered:
May 2006

I want to add some opinion with Neil Ryan’s opinion. There is a compatible atmosphere among our different religious people. The relationship was deepest before the reign of British in our country. But still it has not been extinguished. Though, some people are against of it, they are few in number. We respect others faith preserving our own faith in our mind. In some occasion we get altogether and celebrate it, such as: Pehla Baisakh, Pehla Falgun etc. In my culture as I see in muslim’s occasions Hindu followers join just like that Muslims also participate to their occasion. And I wish this relationship will develop in future.

Author

Message

Md. Sultan Azaz
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
Apr 2006

In this film (Clay bird) I watched cultural pluralism in this film (Clay bird). This film represents varieties of culture that showed this film. During religious festival of Hindu and Muslim, I watched they represent their own Culture. I watched the Boat race and Sarcasm and during Muslim festive they sacrifice their livestock. In both of those festivals I watched they cooked some sweets. During the Eid festival Anu`s mother hospitability was excellent. During the Hindu festival (Durga puza) they also represent some other kinds of sports.

Author

Message

margarettooher
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

Hello fellow Students,

As a participant in the Asia-Link Assignment, I wish to discuss the representation of masculinity in the film The Clay Bird directed by Tareque Masud.

The film is a cultural enterprise centred on a middle-class family and their struggle to maintain a very traditional Islamic way of life. Socio-political change is contested through characterization of family members, and also, at the boarding school where Anu the central protagonist is sent by his father Kaizi. The representation of the male figures, invites the spectator to critique the psychological personalities and the range of political and religious perspectives that exist in the plot of the 1960’s film set in Bangladesh.

The disintegration of Kaizi’s character, questions how a British educated male, can adjust to a more fundamental way of life, even with the support of a traditional wife.
Does the ‘patriarchal’ family offer a realistic view of family life today, in your country?

The emphasis on ‘knowing’ what is happening in the wider community is drawn through Milon, Kaizi’s brother. Milons’ position as a liberal and an activist is shattered when he gets killed by the army. Do you think the influence of religion or family impacts more on the values that people hold?

The construction of the Educational leaders and their management of the ‘madrasah’ portrays’ a cruel approach to dealing with a marginalised pupil Rokon. The scene where the boy is bullied into immersing himself in the river is quite shocking. Is that scenario likely to happen in any school in Pakistan today? Is there legislation to prevent this type of abuse?

Do you think the representation of a more inclusive, open society rests with Anu in the final analysis? Is freedom of choice an option for young people?

Looking forward to hearing from you,
Margaret

Nayela Akter Paru
Member

Posts: 1
Registered: Apr 2006

Does the ‘patriarchal’ family offer a realistic view of family life today, in your country?

The patriarchal family occurs among some richer or orthodox families in rural Bangladesh.Educated women have a lot of freedom in urban areas.
Many NGOs are working for the empowerment of women. So women of our country are gradually becoming conscious about their rights and identity.

Md.Aktteruzzaman_du
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
May 2006

I am very pleased by reading the message of Margaret about the topic masculinity in ''The Clay Bird ''.At first ii want to mention that this film shows a view of 60's when women's position in decision making ,education and social status was so low .At that time 'patriarchal’ family was strictly existed in our country. But deemed of the time today female education and social status are improving. Now they are playing active role in family decision making and going out side for work .so I would like to say that the practice of patriarchy in family life is decreasing specially urban society in our country.

shorna
Member

Posts: 3
Registered: May 2006

The Patriarchal family are seen in everywhere in Bangladesh . In patriarchal family ,man is the earning member and his importance is more than the female. Man thinks that his decision is right decision, that we see in the film , “The Clay Bird”. Anu did not want to go to madrasa but his father pressurized him. When Anu came to home from madrasa he removed his tupi from his head but his father scolded him. And also when Asma was sick her mother wanted to use alopathy but his father did not get permission. Even madrasa we saw that , teacher pressurized the children to learn urdu. The madrasa education is still exist in Bangladesh. But the system has been changed. Now the cruel approach which was seen in these film ,are not seen in that such a way. Bangla, English, Arabic language are taught with same importance. Patriarchal families are also exist in Bangladesh but the harmony of male and female are increasing. Because both are earning member in their family.

Author

Message

AnnaT Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
Apr 2006

I thought the Clay Bird offered a rare glimpse of a country that has for the most part been defined in Western eyes by poverty and natural disaster. At first when watching the film and seeing young Anu being sent to the madrassah I just looked upon it as a normal school. We then hear that it is mainly families who cant afford to feed and clothe their children that send them to the madrassah and I really took notice of the conditions that they are living in. I hav looked at some pages about The Clay Bird and the director of the film Tareque Masud, has said that he himself went to a madrassah but tried to hide the fact that he attended one when he went to college. This fact interested me. It is clear that the madrassah is somewhat of an embarassment for children? Is it only extreme cases that go there? This brings to mind the issue of poverty in the Clay Bird and in Bangladesh. If these schools are simply a means of feeding and clothing these children, then is education secondary, and is it a vicious circle where people in real poverty are forced to send their children there but that the children will never really have the chance to move away from this extreme poverty? (I am presuming that Tareque Masud is a lucky exception)

Md. Jakir Hossen
Member

Posts: 5
Registered:
Apr 2006

I have read a massage on this topic and it seems to me that the writer wants to depict a supplementary relationship between madrasha education and poverty. I do agree with the writer on some points but not wholly as the film “The Clay Bird” gives an impression of such kind of madrasha which is not the mainstream madrasha. This sort of madrasha is called “Kaomiah Madrasha” and these are not approved by the government. Only religious education is taught here. These “Kaomiah Madrashas” represent only a very small portion of total madrasha and mainly the children whose parents are poor & religiously bigot send there children to kaomiah madrasha with some exceptions, where education is free of cost. I agree with the writer in this point that these students can hardly escape from this extreme situation. But this is not the real reflection of mainstream madrasha. Science, Arts, Commerce and other progressive educations are taught beside religious education in mainstream madrasha. People from all walk of society both poor and rich send their children to mainstream madrasha and other educational institutions. There works a sense of religious trends to send the children to madrasha which is to be benefited (religiously) in the life here after. So, in fine, I would like to say that the parents who can not feed and clothe their children properly because of poverty send their children to madrasha is not the reality. The reality is that people from all walk of society both poor and rich especially those who are religious minded send their children to madrasha to be benefited in the life here after.

Shabiha Jahan
Member

Posts: 3
Registered:
May 2006

I deeply observed the comments about the topic “Madrasha & Poverty in The Clay Bird” by Annat. I can agree with him in some points but not all. Though some parents send their children to madrasha but it is not the only cause. There also remains religious sense in sending them to madrasha. The film represents those madrasha where clothing, feeding is free of cost and there education is limited to some religious practices only. But the reality is that this type of madrasha is not the mainstream madrasha. The mainstream madrasha of our country includes science, arts, commerce etc beside religious practices in teaching method.

Author

Message

Shabiha Jahan
Member

Posts: 3
Registered: May 2006

I think that the film “The Clay Bird" has supported the idea that Bangladesh is a country of religious harmony. In the movie I see that Hindu and Muslim stay side by side & live in peaceful. The participation of Hindu & Muslim regardless of religion, race & class in Durga festival & baishakhi fair (New Year celebration) pleased me. In 'The Clay Bird' we also see that Milon's Hindu friends come to his house during EID festival. So this is a very nice example of religious harmony. There are also a lot of instances of religious harmony in our country where Muslims take part in the religious ceremony of other religious groups & vice versa. We help each other in weal & woe though some fanatic & self-seeker persons (such as Kazi) always try to separate himself & his family from others religious culture. Is it possible to occur the disharmony of religion because of some of those people?

Author

Message

snoopy
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

Nowhere in Africa was an interesting film for me as it reflected the emigration of a family to Nigeria during the Second World War from various perspectives. While Regina reaches to integrate herself in her new environment very fast, it is much more difficult for her parents, especially for her mother Jettel, to get on with the situation in the foreign country.
In my opinion, the movie deals with several perspectives of an emigration to a foreign country, with the loss and the questioning of home, but also with interpersonal problems for example between Jettel and her husband Walter.
The mother’s position is very cleaved. In the beginning she cannot manage the situation and cannot accept that her life has changed. She does not realize that she has been saved from the Nazi regime and blames her husband for his decision to go to Africa with his family. Jettel turns away from her husband and searches for proximity of other men. This action could be interpreted as trying to escape of the situation.
Walter is content that he could save the two people he loves most in his life and he works hard to support them. Although he can establish himself in the foreign country, he never feels home and aspires the return of his family to Germany.
In presenting the different situations of the family members the film shows how important and how different the definition of home or rather of the feeling of being home can be and which great impact it can have on an individual life.
One could say that the film shows just an example of the emigration of a Jewish family from Germany to an unknown and very different country but moreover, it is also very interesting to observe the development of the family, their alienation and rapprochement in this whole emigration process.

Author

Message

Carsten Storm
Unregistered

Posts:
Registered:

After reading through the messages I’m a bit surprised how strongly the Irish students interpret the movie in terms gender issues. Checking your class pages reveals that you most probably saw it in connection with feminism or gender, which might be an explanation. However, I do have some objections. Gender as well as low class (orphanage) do serve as sub issues in the movie to illustrate the struggle over religion and / vs. political nationhood. This can explain some of the inconsistencies in the gender related analysis.
I was imagining how a Bangladeshi might understand the messages (given all the difficulties of projection and construction). As a Bangladeshi I would read the strong inquiry about the status of women and taking a minor issue of the movie as the main target as an offence, that sets me into a position of defence. It comes along as a western construction that is preoccupied with a western discourse of emancipation, which even in it’s wish to communicate basically sees deficiencies and thereby construes a Muslim society as the oriental “other”. In fact, here we have a conflict of competing marginalization discourses, each with its typical claim of moral superiority. This is not to say, that there are no gender conflicts in the Bangladeshi society which are worth being dealt with. All intellectuals in Bangladesh would easily admit this. But it is not the main issue of the movie and it means a disrespect for Bangladeshi culture und students to neglect the more obvious issues.

Coming to the movie itself: Some of you were reading the treatment of the daughter as an expression of patriarchal oppression. Yet, while the father Kazi as a pharmacist was giving her a treatment that in modern terms was inadequate, this doesn’t mean he didn’t care for his daughter. As a follower of homoeopathy he believed he did the right thing. It was a struggle of medical convictions and most important, he didn’t treat other patients with a different medical approach, no matter whether they were male of female. Another point is that Anu’s friend Rokon in the madrasa school, who suffered from illness connected to his ears, was treated in a similar way as Anu’s sister. Homoeopathy here was used as a signifier for a ritualistic, fatalist notion of Islam, that refers to Allah’s omnipotence as opposed to modern interventionism. An important scene was the dialogue between Kazi and another patient of him, a nobleman from the village, in which medical treatment was compared to the treatment of social and political problems. The other tried to convince Kazi that one needs to take severe action and that the equivalent to homoeopathy does not work in politics. Kazi is not convinced in the end but due to the social status of his patient he does not dare to openly contradict him. Anyhow, Kazi remains being convinced of his fatalist conviction in both fields: medical as well as political. Only later he becomes partly doubtful. I agree with Anna on this.

According the role of the wife: No doubt there are strong images of gender exploitation and denial of individual rights. Yet, this does not necessarily translate into a feminist approach, written into the movie. The wife’s lament of loosing the children to death and the world is basically a normal experience of parenthood. More important is the shift of her husband Kazi from a wordly man when they married into a orthodox Muslim later on, which had major (negative!) impacts on her life. However, when she, after the battle at the bridge, laments that now every one, who was important to her has left, this refers to her brother in law Milan. I’m pretty sure, that given the normal and every day gender segregation in Bangladesh up to today a Bangladeshi audience reads the relationship between Anu’s mother and Milon as an illicit love affair (what for western eyes seems to be little more than familial affection, but the reference to their own history is pretty strong.) This adds a moral ambivalence to the role of the mother, that can be read as an outcry for independent rights. But this is only one option and the film, at least in my understanding, is not so clear about this. Even when she leaves the village with mental support from Anu, it is left open whether this is a conscious departure from patriarchy or just an attempt to escape the approaching army, following the other villagers. Since Kazi has failed to fulfil his role of a patriarch and a defender of his family in the end, leaving him doesn’t automatically hint to a new awareness of women’s rights. All traditional systems inherit a dual aspect in the duty of living up to ritual roles in society. If one does not fulfil his/her duties the other is not bound to his/hers as well. Leaving Kazi can be explained within traditional thought. Although I think, that Tereque Masud plays the emancipation card here as well. However, the main issue is that Kazi’s failure symbolises the failure of an orthodox fatalist Islam, which has to be left. This resembles very much the end of another Bangladeshi movie: Lalsalu (Tree without Roots) where an Imam serving at a holy man’s graveyard can not cure his wife from illness and does not succeed to prevent the village from being hit by a flood. His fatalist belief in Allah and his prayers prove to be insufficient.

The duet, that was sung near the end of the movie, reminded me very much of communist propaganda forms throughout the 20ies, 30ies and 40ies in China, Italy or Spain. A way of using folk culture to spread communist ideology in rural areas. However, I’m very much puzzled how a Bangladeshi audience understands that scene. When we visited Dhaka for the 3rd ICCD project meeting in February we had a student group one evening performing folk songs. Mostly about love and the life on the country side or national awakening. Songs were performed by either women or men. I asked several professors about a tradition of duets, all said there is none. Given that, I wonder whether there is a disturbing underlying of intersexual relation in that duet scene, that would give a complete different notion of moral ambivalence to the scene and might even completely obstruct the ideological dialogue on the surface (depending on the audience; surely there will be a gap between cities and rural areas). However, for this we would need authentic voices from Bangladesh!!

After all: I do not deny that gender problems do play their role in the movie. (As a western white middle aged intellectual I’m not in the position to do that anyway.) However, I would argue that gender as well as other aspects of marginalized groups (= orphans) are primarily used as signifiers for the main issue, that is about the conflict between an orthodox fatalist version of Islam and a modernized Muslim Bangladeshi nation, that rules its future on its own behalf and independent from Pakistan. In this sense, the clay bird is a symbol for Bangladesh more than a symbol for oppressed women. In fact, there is an interesting moral dilemma in the film. Kazi and the madrasa headmaster in their fatalist approach are emphasizing the peaceful understanding of Islam, since it keeps away from action and hopes for Allah’s will. This produces victims (Anu’s sister, his friend, his mother to some extend). It can however refer to a tradition within Islam (that is not acknowledged in western media, which constructs an image of an terrorist Islam) and, given the Indian heritage in Bangladesh, even to a misinterpreted Ghandi-ism. But, the modernist approach, demanding intervention and action, produces even more victims. The whole group of protesters is slaughtered at the bridge battle and the whole village has to be evacuated. Everyone is loosing their homes. One might claim that the victims to fatalism are suffering meaninglessly and that the victims to modernism at the bridge battle are dying for a meaningful cause. This, however, is in itself a deeply modernist approach of bestowing meaning to life. I wonder what a Bangladeshi audience would make out of this contradiction.

Charlotte
Member

Posts: 5
Registered:
Apr 2006

As regards the fact that Irish students (I am French myself though a full-time UL student) decided to discuss gender issues and seem to neglect other issues, I just want to say that we were given several topics we could discuss, among which feminity, masculinity, nationality and Islam. I'm afraid most of us do not know enough about Islam or Bangladeshi culture, history or national feelings in general to allow ourselves to discuss it in an enlightened way, which explain the predominance of the gender topics (not to mention that feminism has been studied this year in many of our modules). However, I hope this fact does not show any "disrespect" for Bangladeshi culture. If so, I believe we are all very sorry about this.

As regards the reading of the movie given by the Irish students, I'd just like to reply to a couple of points:
- I do agree with you that the treatment of the daughter was not so much due to patriarchy but more to Kazi's pride as a doctor and his beliefs in medicine and that Allah's will shall prevail in the end.
- Another student and I recently discussed the relationship between Ayesha and Milon and assumed that she is probably in love with him, though she probably won't admit it even to herself maybe and disguising it as a childhood friendship and fanily connection. The fact that she represses this love (so much that she isn't aware of it) shows that she accepts some things as they are - whether we call it patriarchy or morality.
- The second duet at the end of the movie seems to have appeared as dealing with gender issues to many students, while I saw it mostly as a discussion between two conception of Islam (though gender was also a part of it) : Keep the love of Allah in your heart/ Keep the fear of Allah in your heart, which ressembles similar discussions within christianity in which the fear of hell and the wrath of God are opposed to the ideas of forgiveness and love of Jesus. If I were to deal with gender issues, I'd like to know how other people see the fact that the female singer was singing the "fear" part? for a reminder:

female singer:
You roam around with women
Without wedding them
You sing and dance together
without shame
The outside world is for men
The woman's place is at home
Keep fear of Allah in your heart

male singer:
Woman is the seed of life
The source of creation
Those who believe in inequality
Lock women into marriage
Woman is the vessel of love
Woman is the mother
Without woman we would not
Come into being


One issue in particular seems to have stricken the Irish students: the fact that Ayesha was called Anu's Mother all the time.They seem to read this as a denial of what she is as a woman. I have already remarked that she is called Anu's Mother, rather than Kazi's wife. But if we think of names in generalin the western culture. My name is Charlotte Derenne. Charlotte was chosen for me by my parents, while Derenne is my father's surname. Does this mean I am denied my identity as a woman because I have my father's family name and will someday take my husband's surname? What name does define me as a woman and more generally as a person? Charlotte? Derenne? My husband's surname? To be cynical, I'd like to remark that a husband's name is the only one you choose by choosing to marry - contrary to your first name or family name since no one chooses to be born. The only name that defines me at least a little is my internet nickname : I chose every letter of it for myself.

Md. Jakir Hossen
Member

Posts: 5
Registered:
Apr 2006

You replied that you do not know properly about Bangladeshi culture and islam but when I read your cmment it seems to me that you already know about many things about Bangladeshi culture,so thank you for your comment.I watched in this movie some religious extrimity and our great libaration war.In this movie I also watched Kazi`s belief upon the army of west pakistan had been totaly distroyed when the army burnt his(Kazi) house and holly Quran.

amy.curran
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
Apr 2006

I am an American student from California living in Ireland for a year, and I saw the original argument as being very extreme. I think that while perhaps on initial viewing some of the cultural practices in Bangladesh might be misinterpreted as being “oppressive” to women by western students and perhaps some Irish (and other Western-culture students) might being to see the family as an ‘other’, one cannot deny that the film still is very strongly pushing for a type of “feminist” discourse (though feminism might present itself very differently in Bangladeshi culture than in Irish society)-
I couldn't help but feel like the film was very strongly suggesting a feminist perspective - although it didn't suggest the same types of feminist theories popular in western thinking, the film maker did very deliberately highlight the character of Anu's Mother in a specific way. Without judging the cultural significance in her being addressed as "Anu's Mother" or her role as a mother/wife/woman in Bangladeshi society, the film did represent her as feeling trapped by her husband (a more “universal” issue for women in my opinion, however we live our own lives to me seems like at least we should have the choice to do so and a voice in our own decision-making). Using scenes such as: Anu's sister asking the mother why she could not go to school, Anu's Mother explaining to her husband that the daughter was lonely without her brother, Kazi growing angry at Anu's Mother's singing, sneaking out of the house to hear music that expresses feelings of entrapment (a scene that was to me very personal between Anu's Mother and the song), Anu's Mother's prevention by Kazi for deciding the treatment for her own daughter (while for Kazi this was a conflict of homeopathy v. modern medicine, for Anu’s mother it was clearly his prevention of her deciding, which is why she blamed her husband for her daughter’s death), her reminiscing with her brother-in law about how free she was as a child, etc. Finally as she left her husband it did appear to me to be about more than just fleeing an army - it had been built upon in these many scenes that while the film wasn’t pressing that the issues were specifically Bangladeshi, Anu’s Mother’s specific problems were within her marriage. While Anu's Mother to me appeared to greatly value her role as a mother, it was clear that her life had left her too trapped to continue because of her husband (not Bangladeshi culture), and thus the "feminist critique" of the film is very applicable.

Charlotte
Member

Posts: 5
Registered:
Apr 2006

Amy has a very interesting point when she says feminism is also subjected to culture. This means that what may appear to us westerners as oppressing women maybe seen completely differently in different culture or circumstances.
A very simple example from my country. In the early to mid 20th century, women were fighting to be allowed to wear trousers rather than skirts. Not so much that skirts were oppressive in themselves, but the idea that women were not allowed to wear trousers when these were much more practical and gave more freedom of movement was felt to be oppressive. Very recently however (the last 5 years), French women are fighting again to be allowed to wear skirts. This is because the view on skirts have changed. Being a very feminine garment, skirts have now been associated to seduction and even prostitution (various terms for "prostitute" now being a favourite insult of many young French men). In some areas, particularly suburbs of big French cities, a woman cannot wear a skirt (regardless of its length) without being called names and considered as an "easy" girl. From there the recent struggle for the re-acceptation of skirts.

To get back to the movie, all through the screening of it, while I heard Ayesha called Anu's Mother, I knew this would be seen as denying her identity, and in common western feminist view, it certainly is. Yet I also kept thinking that maybe in Bangladeshi culture, this is a very common way of addressing women and not much more relevant than when we address our mothers as "mommy".

Najmul Ahmed
Member

Posts: 4
Registered: Apr 2006

At first of all I want to say that, Bangladeshi culture is very much different from western culture. In this film "The Clay Bird" displayed a little image of Bangladeshi culture and the time of this film was 1970-71.

In the film we have seen a song is called "Pala Gaan". Here two singer counterparts about a subject and it are instantly composed. It is very interesting in our village. But now it is gradually changing.

I disagree with Charlotte about the relationship between Ayesha and Milon. At the time of the film in Bangladesh exist child marriage? So Ayesha was a little girl and she played with Milon. So there was no relationship of love between them.

In Bangladesh father is the leader of a family and the parents are recognized by the elder child of the family. Thus here come Anu's father and mother.

Charlotte
Member

Posts: 5
Registered: Apr 2006

Najmul Ahmed,
when I spoke of what I felt was love between Ayesha and Milon, I didn't mention marriage nor said they had an actual relationship. I just felt Ayesha might have some feelings for Milon : when they have this conversation before he goes to fight on the bridge, she expresses her despair at the idea that he may not come back. When he dies, she tells her husband she has lost everyone she loved.

And thank you for your explanation on the "Anu's Mother" name.

Author

Message

Kamal Hossain
Member

Posts: 4
Registered: Apr 2006

In the film "The Clay Bird" the director drew a picture of patriarchal society. We saw that the madrasha education was only for male, there is no female education in madrasha. There was no participating of female in national politics. Male controlled the economic activities. In the family female were neglected. Male made decision in any matter in the family and the family did not respect women's opinion. Women had no freedom to go out of the house.

Author

Message

Humayun
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
May 2006

We mostly are informed about the conserbativeness,superstitious beliefs and the socio-cultural context of Bangladesh around the year of 1971.But if we want to research or give depth look into the film we will be able to know the realization power is growing on side by side the conserbativeness.Yes, i am speaking about the Anu`s uncle and his friend`s character in the film (the clay bird),also I would like to give a general attention in the above mentioned characters.All the youg boys show their different attitudes against the conserbativenes.This also proves that there is also the existence of reconstructive thinkers in Banglades.So it`s my own view not to get or make any commitment depending on the so called back-dated characters in the film.Because today`s Bangladesh is constructing itself with the great speed of modern ideas,impact of cultures,norms and vlues etc.

Author

Message

Md. Sultan Azaz
Member

Posts: 2
Registered: Apr 2006

In this flim (The clabird) I also watched the liberation war. In the end of this film Kazi(Anu`s father) had a firm believe that the army of West Pakistan will safe our religion (Islam) but his believe had been completely destroyed when that army burnt his holly book(holly Quaran) and also burnt his house. But his younger brother (Millon) was completely the opposite character of his elder brother (Kazi). The superstion had been completely destroyed. And they become aware that they are going to have a new Identity and a new Nation (Bengali Nation).

I also watched in this film (Clay bird) that there were also Religious harmony between the Hindu and the Muslim.

In this film (Clay bird) the major massage is Secularism.

Author

Message

Karunamoy
Member

Posts: 1
Registered: May 2006

In the film Clay Bird i have observed that those who believe in religion extremely suffer mental problem. They couldn't accept other religious people easily. The film clear that every unhappy thing occurred only for the blindly believes in religion of kazi but as a matter of fact this is not teaching of religion. But i think every religion teaches to love all the people in the world. Here we observed extremely believes in religion by Kazi and his zealotry kills his daughter Asma and his son Anu send away from his family to a religious school. That extreme attitude of Kazi for blindly believes in religion which destroyed his family. For blindly believes in religion Kazi didn't allow his son to eat sweet that was brought by his brother from Mela. This also main cause that in our country most of the people are lived bellow poverty line. For this, most of the poor people don't get proper education. So the masses that who lived in rural area send their children to madrsha where education is lower of cost. For this some of the people in our country remain in orthodoxies think. It may be said that not only for madrsha also for illiterate and poverty in our country. Somehow women are deprived from their rights.

Author

Message

ferdousidalia
Member

Posts: 2
Registered: May 2006

In this film, we see the formation of Bengali national identity. The essential message of this film ''The clay bird'' is secularism. People fought for a secular bengali identity .The liberation war of 1971 was against orthodoxy. There was religious harmony among different religious groups .For hundreds of years they lived together without any conflict.

Author

Message

0347523 Member

Posts: 1
Registered: Apr 2006

Like many countries worldwide, religion has set up rules that must be followed to pave a spiritual pathway to heaven. Some such rules are seen very clearly within this film, such as when the teacher scolds one of his students because his handwriting is terrible. It turns out that the student is left-handed but the teacher says that you are only allowed to write the Arabic alphabet with your right hand. In the past, this was also experienced within schools in Westerns countries as people were beaten into using their right hands as left-handedness was seen as demonic.When Anu first goes to the school and tells the teacher his name, he is told he must change it to Anwar because Anu isn't a Muslim name. This shows the restrictions of the Muslim faith when people have to change their names in order to suit its cause.

Literally, Islam means ‘submission, peace and salvation’. Muslims do not believe in war. When Milon goes to fight in a war for his beliefs, Kazi won't hear his name spoken again because he has neglected one of the terms of the Muslim faith....'peace'. In Kazi's view he has committed a sin in the eyes of God.

It can be argued that Kazi uses the excuse of religion to protect his own obstinacy. If he is not in agreement with a certain issue he justifies his ideas with being anti-Muslim i.e when Milon gives Anu a bag of sweets, Kazi calls them "heathen trash". Likewise, when Ayesha is sewing a pretty design, Kazi grunts "Allah save us!", but in fact it is probably his own dislike that summons up these comments. It is also seen clearly when he wont allow Ayesha to give Asma the doctors medicine because he believes that "it's Allahs will", however it is more likely to be his pride in the fact that he administers this homeopathy to the rest of the village and shall not exclude his own daughter from this practice. When his daughter died he learned a very valuable lesson, by instructing Kahrim to visit the doctor instead of taking a homeopathic remedy.

Yet even though he made his families life a misery through his own arrogance, he used religion as an excuse to uphold his strict way of life. This is evident within cultures where religion is used to restrict certain aspects of life, and many people use it for their own advantage, simliar to Kazi's approach.NormalText">

Author

Message

toni
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

I found it interesting the representation of Femininity in the Claybird. The women in the film are in my opinion treated as second class citizens. They answer to their husbands demands and come when they are called. I thought that the way the father in the film called his wife , his sons mother, was very degrading. Also I thought it was very disrespectful how the father ignorned the mothers wishes, instincts and concerns when her daughter was sick and he refused to allow her to give her daughter the conventional medicine she had got for her. Maybe if the daughter had recovered I would have felt that the father had been correct to do what he did, but as she died as a result I felt dispite for him.
Simulataneously however I thought that the mother in the film was a very strong woman who did stand up to her husband. Even if he did ignore her opinions and desires, she was not afraid to tell him what they were and to voice her disgust and lack of love for him. Also despite all he did, she still tried to save him at the end of the film, something which I feel showed great strenght of charchter and perhaps even slight forgiveness on her part.

Author

Message

0365386
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

The film gave me an opportunity to experience another part of the world and gave me an insight into another culture. What I found very interesting was the music in the film, and how a debate about Islam was expressed in song. What I think was, that two sides of the faith were revealed. Islam as a religion and a way of life filled with love, the otherside which we saw in the father, Kazi and the head Sir of the Madrasa which is extreme. It was this extreme attitude that the father had to his religion which destoryed his family. The film gave me an insight into a faith I knew nothing about and how complex and conflicting the Islam faith is even amoung family members.

Sophie
Member

Posts: 1 Registered:
Apr 2006

The movie clearly reproaches the religious fanaticism exercised by Anu's father, Kazi, a strict Muslim. His zealotry kills his daughter, Asma, (as he refuses to treat his daughter with anything but homeopathic medicin) and it sends Anu away from his family to a religious school, where one of Anu's friends, Rokon, is forced to plunge into the river for a long time when he has an ear infection. This was a muslim ritual to cure him, but it almost kills him. Kazi's zealotry also makes his wife, Ayesha, unhappy. Her daughter dies, her son is taken away from her and she is not allowed to have an opinion of her own. She has to be obedient. However, especially after the death of her daughter, she lets her husband know that she has a mind of her own and eventually she leaves him. So, the picture this movie shows of religious zealots, is not a positive one at all. The whole of Kazi’s family suffers from it.

Kamal Hossain
Member

Posts:4
Registered:
Apr 2006

The message of the film is very clear Islam is religion of love, peace, happiness and self-awareness. However, some people describe it by their own way, which they do just for fulfill their self-demand. In addition, this hampers ordinary people's life. In the movie, Anu's father is that kind of person. Who intentionally uses religious believes for his own. However, Islam is not a religion of one person. It is same for all people. Under the shadow of Islam, all people are same and Islam takes care of all people in the same way. (Edited by Kamal Hossain)

shamim ara
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

i am very happy to see the power of observation of sophie. she noticed everything clearly and from the view point of a perfect sociologist. yes, it is said that every unhappy thing occured only for the zealotry of kazi. but as a matter of fact this is not the teachings of islam. islam never tells to do treatment in a way which almost kills a man. it never allows a person to be treated in a harmful way. but here we can see that that unfortunate thing happened only for the zealotry of kazi. he was mistaugt and took islam as a religion of oppresson and strict rules which are very tough to obey.

Md. Jakir Hossen
Member

Posts: 5
Registered:
Apr 2006

I think the Bangladeshi culture has changed a lot in the recent years and the film "The Clay Bird " gives a cultural picture of 70' s. So this is not a real picture as things have changed a lot in these years. However, the Madrasha ( religious educational institution ) education system shown in the film is not a mainstream madrasha education system. We see that the mainstream madrasha education system includes science, arts and commerce. So, the students from madrashas today learn not only religious education but also the science, arts and commerce. We should also bear in mind that at that time,(in 60's and 70's) Bangladesh was more backward in education. The literacy rate was very low. Most of the people lived under poverty line. Mostly people who were extremely poor send their children to those sorts of madrashas where education was free of cost. But I also believe that there remains some misuse of Islam as shown in the film in madrashas as well as our society till today and I am optimistic that things will change in the course of time when all the people of Bangladesh will be able to get proper education.

Colm
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

To be honest until I watched this film I was quite unaware of the depth of the contradictions that exist within Islam. In general, living in northwestern Europe our media generally only concentrate on the violence and terror of certain sections of Islam. The fundamentalism of Kazi and that of the head teacher of the madrasaha appears to be more dominant in this day and age. It is the head teacher who speaks of jihad and how all those who are not believers are blasphemers. It almost feels like he is brainwashing his pupils, not unlike the level of influence tha catholic church had in Ireland 40 years ago.But what I feel the Clay Bird does is show that this is not a complete representation of Islam. I think it is very important that we can see the conflict tha exists within Islam, between that of the fundamentalists and those that see Islam as peace, love and equality.

Author

Message

amy.curran
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
Apr 2006

I would like to chat with someone on skype if interested about the clay bird, I am most interested in the topics of gender (masculinity/femininity) representations. If you're interested let me know! I am using the skype user name of shameoneamon

Author

Message

Sarah
O Reilly
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

In the film i think the role the men play is vividly portrayed. We witness the dominance of the father figure over his wife and his children and how he disapproves of his brothers relationship with his son and his brothers will to fight against the army.
The headmaster shows his power over the students in the classroom through his form of discipline and when he puts the student in the river to rid him of evil spirits. There is a clear contrast between the roles of women in society and the roles the men play. Men dominate is practically every aspect of life. They are better educated, have jobs, they decide the future for their children and wife.
The theme of masculinity is representated in these areas in the film adn are worth discussing on a basic level of mens superiority and dominance in the society and the consequences of their actions.

Anna
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
Apr 2006

Yes I agree completely. The issue of the male ego and male superiority is even taken to the extent that Kazi will let his daughter suffer to the point of death instead of taking an alternative remedy from a pharmacy. Such is his faith in his practice of Homeopathy that he imposes it on his family - despite their being visible signs that his method is not working.

However, I would like to say that while I acknowledge this aspect of male superiority in his character, I do recognise that Kazi learns from this mistake. At a later point in the film he discourages a neighbour from taking his remedy and goes as far as to give him the money to get a medicine from the pharmacy.

In the end though, despite having realised the errors of his ways in relation to his competency as a medical practitioner, he will not relent "my books, my house, my home" when it is necessary that he do so for the sake of his own life and his part of his family. In the end he prioritises his material worth, over the desperate pleas of his wife and son to flee for safety.

Humayun Kabir
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

We witness the dominance of the father figure over his wife and his children and how he disapproves of his brothers relationship with his son and his brothers will to fight against the army.

I am pleased reading your message~actually it is a fantastic evaluation about the particular film(clay bird) but I think some changing which already occured in this country should alarm or notice here~for your kind information the film is made on the socio-cultural context of Bangladesh in the year of 1971.Today the context is changed particularly what you said is rare something now in this country,for the involvement of various institutions such as NGOs,spreadding of education and personal consciosness. The dominance of husband groups over the wives now-a-days are becoming in a protection level. I think the dominance`s attitude of the males over the females are seen more or less over the world.Do you agree that it is also visible in your country also?

Author

Message

Sarah
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

I think I missed some of the themes etc but I noticed that (apart from being defined by their professions i.e pharmacist, teacher etc) men seemed to be either religious/traditional/ disliking change
or
modern/poitical/radical/ supporting change
What do you think?

I also thought that Kazi (the father of Anu and Asma, the little gil who dies) is a very interesting character as other people in the film tell us that he used to be very like his brother Milon - he used to wear shirts like englishmen etc but then he changed. He became very religious, grew a beard and made his wife wear a headress even at home.
Did you think that?
Why did he become so religious?

kateoconnor
Member

Posts: 3
Registered:
Apr 2006

I think that Milon and Kazi were quite essentialist and stereotyped in that respect. They represented binary oppositions I suppose, and the way they interacted with the other characters determined which came out as a superior oppostion - Milon I would consider to be the more favourable of the two brothers.
I think they put that part of Kazi's history into the story to make us understand more how entrapped Ashyma (Anu's mother) felt, because perhaps we as "liberated females" could identify with her more, and understand that she fell in love with a different man than is in the film. If Kazi had always been so religious then we may not have understood why Ashyma married him in the first place.

Anna
Member

Posts: 2
Registered:
Apr 2006

I agree that the brothers are presented as polar opposites in the film. It seems that where Milon has found happiness in Hinduism and as a revolutionary with his peers, Kazi has become "blindly religious" and oppressive in his role as husband, father and brother.
At one point Milon and his friends speak of imperialism and the class struggle, they are campaigning to "free political prisoners" and speak of Marxism and Caplitalism in an idealistic way. Milon states at one point that "all isms are Western". The untimely death at the bridge, of Milon and his fellow revolutionaries suggests that Western culture and its aforementioned "isms" cannot fit in to an eastern Islamic culture.
That does not go to say however that the film supports the extremist practice of Islam. By the film's conclusion it is clear that Kazi's life has by no means been enriched by his uncompromising and indignant prioritising of Islam. His family has been torn apart by his obstinance. It is interesting that the last image we get of Kazi is next to a window with iron bars; an aesthetic representation of his mental and physical state by the end.
I also agree that the male characters in the film move within the stereotypical male-dominated spheres of politics, religion and education. However, the benefits of this are less than evident, as the wisdom, insight, care and expressive nature of the female figures in the film prove to be as much if not more progressive than the respective male associations.

Author

Message

Nathalie
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

I thought that the song sung as a duet in the film was a very good way to put the film into perspective. One could look at this as religious differences, or perhaps of the role of women in this culture.

kateoconnor
Member

Posts:3
Registered:
Apr 2006

I found the lyrics really interesting, they really tied in with the whole bird metaphor that ran throughout the film. I loved the line "The bird is trapped by the body's cage". Did anyone notice though that the male songs were concerned with Allah and religion, whereas the female songs were more spiritual?

Author

Message

Elaine
O Connell
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

From the opening scene, the male characters are seen to dominate their society and families. Anu is being eduacated 'like his father' while the women work in the home. Kazi rules the household while his family are afraid to stand against him. I think that 'The Clay Bird' is a condemnation of the extent to which male domination will go. Because of Kazi's ideas, his daughter dies of a curable disease. Through the character of Milon, Kazi's brother, a different and more postive form of masculinity is presented. Kazi addresses his wife as 'Anu's mother' whereas Milon calls her by her name. He spends recreational time with Anu and is more of a father and a husband to his own brother's family than Kazi himself. By the end of the film the man is portrayed as materialistic, domineering and a poor decision maker. When the army invades the town he is more concerned about his house and possessions than his family who have spent the night in the forest. In the final scene, femininity is given a voice and power. Kazi's wife makes the decision to leave for the good of herself and her son. In Kazi, masculinity is left dejected, uncertain and lost.

Author

Message

0348309
Member

Posts: 1
Registered:
Apr 2006

I thought that altough the Clay Bird portrayed many images of traditional masucline roles, such as the man being the ruler in the home, it also challenged these roles. I thought this was particularly evident when Kazi's daughter was ill.Kazi was shown as the ruler in the home when he had control over her treatment.The mother could not give her duaghter medicine because Kazi would not allow it.
Perhaps the fact that the daughter later died was an attempt to highlight how women in the home suffer when these traditional masculine roles are in place in a culture.