Was I the only one whoooo didn’t love acoss spiter verbse

Born in Flames (Lizzie Borden, 1983) is an experimental documentary style film with social commentary from a feminist lens. Themes embodied in this film are seen as radical, depicting issues of classism, sexism, racism, feminism, social justice, police brutality, revolution on an individual and societal scale, and most prominent the role of media in culture.  . Born in Flames takes place in a democratic socialist New York City, during the tenth anniversary of the war of liberation following a victory from the social labor party. The visual storytelling techniques used in the film are depicted through news clips, montages, radio broadcasts, live music performances, speeches, documentary sequences, and surveillance footage. The cut and paste style of editing throughout the film allows the audience to view a variety of diverse and multicultural perspectives on society at this time, and allows visibility towards groups that aren’t usually represented in cinema, such as black lesbians. This film placed an emphasis on the contrast between cultural glorification from the media and the struggling reality of the working class. The television news clips incorporated into the film romanticize and celebrate the socialist democracy the film takes place under, including public speeches from the Mayor applauding the tenth anniversary of this society. These news clips contrast the on the ground working class struggle and protests depicted right after. A majority of the film is told through radio broadcasters from two different stations advocating for radical women’s liberation. Honey from Phoenix Radio, a soft-spoken, African American woman, and Isabel from Radio Regazza, an outspoken white lesbian. While their identities contrast each other, both are speaking the same message to the masses about the liberation front. This alludes to the notion that while we might look different, liberation stands for all of those oppressed. One aesthetic that added to the visual style of the film was the bright, saturated and contrasty colors depicted when only women were on the screen. Each actor’s skin tones were greatly complemented by these saturated colors, especially the black women in this film. I thought this was interesting and a point of production, as many early filmstocks were designed only to complement white skin tones. Not only was each skin tone matched with clothing that complemented their tone, the background in the setting also tied into the overall aesthetic match as well.  . The director of the film, Lizzie Borden, is an experimental film director who favors a more ‘naive’ aspect of film production. Most of her films are depicted from a feminist lens, and explore class, race, and sexuality struggles among society. Born in Flames stands to depict issues that were happening at the time surrounding inequality which are still very much around today. In particular, the President’s broadcasted address about Wages for Housework along with the backlash to it refers to 1970’s workfare policies that discriminated against single and queer women. Scenes in the film were also shot in real life subways and monuments in New York City, such as Washington Square Park. Incorporating these locations gave a feel of realism to the film and gives the audience a sense that this film could be an alternate or parallel reality happening in real time.  . In one documentary sequence, there is a montage of visuals that implies attributes of a  socialist society. Short, close up shots of varying subjects such as an LED sign in a crowded plaza that says “Disabled? Can’t Work?”, a shot of a woman packing and wrapping chicken, a black woman working in a doctor’s office, women doing paperwork and cutting hair; the montage then transitions to women protesting in the street, chanting “we need a J-O-B so we can E-A-T!”. This montage hints at ideal aspects of a socialist society; mass production, universal health care, high employment at ranges of different skill level jobs. This is an example of the media glorifying ideal aspects for the masses of a socialist democracy, while failing to acknowledge the gaps in which there lies class struggle. Towards the end of the film, during the President’s State of the Union address, there is a montage of different viewers watching their television set contrasted with the Women’s Army sabotaging the broadcast, while the narrative of the President continuously stitches them together. The film depicts a variety of viewers tuned in to the President’s message, flipping back and forth to the broadcast sabotage and the audience watching at home. There were a variety of viewers depicted, emphasizing the diversity of the nation, such as an old white couple watching intently at home, versus a single black woman smoking a joint alone by her television. When the broadcast was interrupted by a direct action message from the Women’s Army, it stood as a symbol for breaking this media glorification of the socialist democracy.  . Receptions to Born in Flames vary; those who resonated with Borden’s political beliefs and ideologies tended to resonate with the film and ultimately find it more persuasive. Many critiques viewed the film as revolutionary, even calling it an ‘80s landmark of indie and queer cinema.’ Others took a neutral stance, saying that the film had “all the advantages and disadvantages of a home movie”. For some, the film was too radical and revolutionary. For those who shared Borden’s values, the film was a peek into what the future could look like, and also a mirror of what the underlying rampant and often ignored issues in society.(source for receptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_in_Flames#Reception) . The title of the film is named after the song “Born in Flames” which was written by a member of the progressive avant-garde band “Red Krayola”. The song plays several times throughout the film, and first appears in the opening sequence when the tenth anniversary of the socialist democracy is being celebrated. The song stands as a symbol of the aggressiveness of the liberation and the fire of motivation behind the women’s resistance. Overall I enjoyed Born in Flames and its unique editing style, and thought this film even predicted the future, such as bombing the World Trade center. The social commentary within this film speaks to generations of oppressed and gives hope to a new wave of revolution. – ECo

LGBT RIGHTS IN THE 60/70s (Part 3/3) | Issue 2

LGBT RIGHTS IN THE 60/70s  by EMILIE PARENT AND L.D.

EAST

The social context during the 1960s and 1970s was vastly different in the Eastern bloc than in the Western. While the West was undergoing major social changes, socialist-ruled states struggled to maintain a strict social order despite feeling the ripples of the West’s wave of individualization and liberalization of morals. Despite these two decades being defining for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people of the West, who organized into an actual community, defining a new subculture, making history, winning some fights and starting others, engaging in same-sex relationships or non-gender conforming behaviours in the East still meant living under secrecy or facing overwhelming social stigma. But even in these closely controlled societies, and despite the state-enforced morals, some small and very gradual changes took place. But how did Eastern bloc states come to this? Throughout the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and for a few more centuries after that, Eastern Europe and especially Russia were reputed for their tolerance in terms of sexual practices. Even though same-sex sexual activities were punishable by law (given that the czar was the garant of the Orthodox Church which deemed homosexuality a sin), these jurisdictions were sometimes disregarded, and many notable figures were known to have such relationships. In 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution abolished the Russian Empire legal system, and replaced it with the Criminal Code of the Russian Soviet Federalist Socialist Republic in 1922, which allowed homosexuality. Whether this was a conscious decision, reflecting the views held by legal and medical professionals at the time, or rather the result of forgetfulness (considering homosexuality remained a taboo and that homosexuals were still prosecuted sporadically with other articles of the Code in post-Bolshevik Russia), sparks debate.

However, this somewhat laxist tradition when it came same-sex relationship was brought to a sudden halt under the stalinist rule. In 1933 and 1934, the new General Secretary of the RCP re-instaured anti-sodomy laws. Despite Stalin’s death in 1953, this governmental mindset persisted throughout the 60s and the 70s. The morals promoted by state-socialist celebrated purely reproductive intercourse – not unlike traditional, conservative Christians of the West, despite the socialist abolition of religion. The single goal to any sexual relationship was to procreate in order to provide the party and the country with more labor-force. Hence, any kind of sexual behavior done solely for pleasure was considered a perversion, be it masturbation or same-sex relationships. Additionally, gay men were considered a threat to the soviet ideal of a strong, virile working man, which was why it was considered a greater offense to be the one on the receiving end of sodomy. Rejection of homosexuality was also used as a form of propaganda, quite similarly to what was done in the West. While in America, homosexuality was associated to communism as a threat to American values, socialist states spread the idea that such practices came from capitalist countries, where they were widespread. Most socialist ideologies associated homosexuality with bourgeois decadence and aesthete society, and felt that these "perverted Western morals" were dangerous to soviet society.

“Judged by the degree of danger that it poses to society and the difficulties which beset its investigation, muzhelozhstvo (homosexuality, pederasty) holds a specific place among sexual offences. In capitalist countries this type of sexual perversion is now widespread […]. The situation is different in the USSR. As a result of the abolition of prostitution and the ban on pornographic literature (both of which encourage various sexual perversions), the general improvements in the healthy lifestyle of the Soviet people, and our moral code, cases of homosexual behaviour and other criminal sexual offences in the Soviet Union are now rarely encountered. Nevertheless, they pose a certain threat to society” (I. Blyumin, official of the Bureau of Forensic Medical Expertise for Moscow and the Moscow region, 1970)

This was probably why “punitive psychiatry” was used on political dissidents and “sexual deviants” alike. Engaging in same-sex relationships not only meant risking one’s job (and consequently, one’s exclusion from society considering the place that work occupied in a socialist state), and/or imprisonment from 3 to 8 years, but also exposing one’s self to the government’s dangerous experimentations. These consisted in using chemicals to suppress will, so that it could be attempted to impose a certain way of thinking or certain reflexes on them. That kind of conversion therapy mirrored what was done in the West with sexopathology: both capitalist and socialist countries pathologized homosexuality, which is to say they considered it an illness to be cured. But the most effective tactic in order to enforce opinions in every individual in society was censorship and propaganda. Any idea of non-normative sexuality was carefully erased, while a model of the perfect soviet family was tirelessly promoted.


Propaganda poster, for a strong, healthy, happy soviet family

But despite the government’s best efforts, ideas of sexual revolution inherited from the West, were beginning to seep into socialist states by the 60s. This process was different depending on each country. In countries that were situated closer to the USSR, and hence felt the influence of state socialism on a stronger level, the liberalization of morals happened much more slowly and insignificantly. But even in the USSR, family values were marginally relaxed during the 60s, with divorce procedures being made easier under the Krutschev rule. In the beginning of the 70s, homosexuality emerged as a topic that could be discussed. Of course, this was only so long as it wasn't being painted as something positive, but it was still a step away from the overwhelming taboo that it still was. For example, the poem Moscow to the end of the line, published in the USSR in 1973 by writer and satirist Yerofeyev, included a monologue about homosexuality in its last pages.

Meanwhile, in East Germany and most other socialist states, homosexuality stopped being outlawed during the 60s and the 70s: 1961 in Hungary, 1962 in Czechoslovakia, 1968 in Bulgaria and 1977 for Croatia, Montenegro as well as Slovenia. This was due to intellectuals’ and scientists’ ideas changing. In Czechoslovakia especially, the psychologist and researcher Kurt Freund specialized in sexology, and was one of the first to vocally advocate that homosexuality isn't a pathology but simply an erotic preference, and that reassignment therapy is not only ineffective, but also harmful. What explains the marginal liberalism in these countries is the spread of idea of individualization imported from the West. Against the ideas of the uniformization that had been enforced for more than half a century, people were slowly beginning to demand some diversity in terms of clothing, TV, taste in music... However, this was still done under close governmental control, and was coupled with an increase in police surveillance. But the liberalization of the way of life had already been started. A telling example is the one of a Hungarian women's magazine (similar to Cosmo) that led a social experiment on university students in the early 70s, where participants were presented with 8 stories of sexual comportments that were considered "typical and widespread" by the authors, if marginal. The students had to classify the stories, depending on if they agree or not with them. Amongst stories about prostitution, masturbation, people deciding to have sexual intercourse before marriage, was the story of a gay man who kept all his same-sex encounters discreet and consensual. This story was met with mostly pity on the students' part: indeed, despite bit of flexibility that was apparently given, deeply ingrained ideas were slow to change, and the taboo on homosexuality remained strong.

But in this hostile context, how was it really like to be LGBT in a socialist state in the 60s and the 70s? Most people that didn't fit in the conventional family values had to lead double lives. In the USSR, which was way stricter on these matters as stated before, meetings had to be carefully organized, and were only possible in certain social circles, mainly in big cities but also in some organizations where gender separation made same-sex relationships more likely, such as Gulags or the Red Army. There existed some underground press as well, such as the poet Yevgeny Kharitonov and the poet and essayist Gennady Trifonov. In other socialist countries, a few meeting points appeared in big cities after the legalization of homosexuality: public restrooms, bathing houses or saunas, as well as some bars or cinema. Despite having a legal right to exist, they all retained their aura of marginality and secrecy, and tended to be shut down by police if discovered. Lesbians and trans people were underrepresented and struggled to meet like-minded people. For example, only a few bars and cafés were frequented by lesbians, and even then, they represented around 10-15% of the clientele, according to a Hungarian account. 

However, lesbians found themselves less persecuted by the law than gay men, because female sexuality was given so little thought that same-sex female attraction was mostly unrecognized and hence not outlawed. East Berlin was by far the most liberal city of the Eastern bloc, it was also the only place which developed a LGBT community and a gay scene in similar proportions as cities of the West did. In East Germany, homosexual acts ceased to be punished in the 50s, and LG organization were allowed to organize themselves freely as long as they had some kind of connection with the Protestant Church. Several neighbourhoods especially were known for being a centre of LG activity and gained the nickname "the warmest corner of the East". The most well-known organization was the activist group Homosexuelle Interessengemeinschaft Berlin (HIB). It was created in 1973 after a screening of the movie Nicht der homosexuelle ist pervers, sondern die Gesellschaft, in der er lebt (It is not the homosexual that is perverted, but the society in which he lives). This movie had a huge impact on LGBT people at the time, making them realize the importance of their combat, and the need for structured, broad organizations rather than what they had at the time, which was a few hidden meeting points (some apartments were used for political and social meetings or as unofficial libraries).

 The HIB was very active during the 70s. Its goals were to have the community gain visibility, by organizing events for up to 200 people, and lobbying the East German authorities for official state recognition. These activists' tactics (film-making, appropriation of public space) actually blended with Western ideologies and methods, due to broad contact and sharing of resources with Western activists. They had access to Western gay media and films, and met Western activists who travelled to the German Democratic Republic such as Peter Tatchell. But despite benefiting from this support, the dawning LGBT community still faced state intransigeance and surveillance. In spite of this, the activists persisted with some success, and in 1977, the HIB's women group attempted to organize a nation-wide lesbian meeting. But this emergence of an actual LGBT community in East Berlin, due to ties with the West, remained an exception in the East. In most other socialist countries, gay scenes developed later, with the emergence of underground movements such as the punk scene, and on a smaller scale. Homosexuality continued to be met with pity at best, and disgust at worst, as it was still associated with the West. The consequences of the taboo and repression that marked this era are still felt today. Having missed on these defining years, LGBT people in post-socialist countries tend to have a lesser sense of community, of togetherness, of a shared fight throughout the whole community. They also suffer from a feeling of having no history on which to base their experiences, no “elders” to listen to and take advice from. This time, in between wars and massive political awakening from all occidental countries, appears as a nourishing field for the growth of radical political movements. The opposition between capitalist and communist parties, the losing of trust in the institutions after the second world war, the discovery of the horrors of fascists regimes created a propice environment for the development of new ideas. While the sixties were still shy in terms of social changes, the seventies call for more radical actions and a desire to include more people. LGBT rights get a place more and more important in public debates. As LGBT groups appear and gain influence, they create their own history. Being LGBT and being out becomes a political act, as countries try to enforce, with more or less zeal, the ideal of the nuclear family. But it still stays a sort of side-effect of other movements, and people keep facing important backlash, being denied jobs, housing or proper healthcare. Furthermore, politics tend to instrumentalize the issue on both sides of the political spectrum, conservatives raising it as a proof that socialism brings decadence while in Eastern Europe, communists present it as the ultimate perversion of a liberal lifestyle.

As the decade closes, the apparition of AIDS, although not yet named as such, puts the brakes on the huge steps made in the right direction. The sudden disease plagues the next decades and gives conservative associations an excellent reason to invoke the ghost of a divine judgement on impure people, leading to tensions in the public spheres. While LGBT groups keep fighting through, it takes another ten years for the community to see the fruits of its long, hard labour.

On the 31st of March, Gilbert Baker left us. We give thoughts and love to the community, and to Baker for his joyous and indelible mark in our cause.

FURTHER READINGS :

The Gay Metropolis, Charles Kaiser: chronicles of gay life in America since 1945 Russian homophobia from Stalin to Sochi, Dan Healey (to be published in November 2017) Stereophonic: webcomic about a gay couple in 1960s London stereophonic.thewebcomic.com Another Way, 1982 (Hungary): iconic movie about an illegal same-sex affair in late 50s Soviet-occupied Hungary Major! (2015): documentary about the life of activist Miss Major Griffin-Gracy (TRAILER)