Recording of conference presentation on women in film, 1981, Side 1
Web Video Text Tracks Format (WebVTT)
WEBVTT
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.000
–Which was to be performed by a different worker or group of workers.
00:00:06.000 --> 00:00:17.000
I argue that the phenomenon of woman cutters and assemblers has to do with the nature of their work - cutting and assembling with such that women can hold these jobs without upsetting the patriarchal system.
00:00:17.000 --> 00:00:26.000
This work involves skills associated with domestic labor, it hid the accomplishments of the worker, and it placed the worker in a subordinate position.
00:00:26.000 --> 00:00:32.000
Cutting and assembling involves skills associated with domestic labor which is traditionally performed by females.
00:00:32.000 --> 00:00:43.000
Roseland, Baxadell, et al. point out that "much of the creative work that women do is an extension of their family work: sewing, cleaning, supporting, restoring, caring."
00:00:43.000 --> 00:00:50.000
Cutting and assembling, like sewing, are detail work involving attaching things together and requiring much patience.
00:00:50.000 --> 00:00:56.000
Ruth recalled that "cutting negative filled my eye, having to match the action was very tedious work."
00:00:56.000 --> 00:01:01.000
"Close ups of Lillian Gish in Orphans of the Storm would go on for miles and they'd be very similar."
00:01:01.000 --> 00:01:07.000
{laughter}
00:01:07.000 --> 00:01:15.000
[[something?]]family industries during the transition to capitalism, processing raw materials and finishing the end product were women's tasks.
00:01:15.000 --> 00:01:23.000
In the cutting rooms of the film industry, women continued this traditional separation of labor rules by sex, finishing and polishing the director's work.
00:01:23.000 --> 00:01:30.000
Cutters were to proofread the films, watching for unintentional inconsistencies and details, for example, in dress.
00:01:30.000 --> 00:01:38.000
This is from a book by Anita Loos and John Emerson. Starting the hero downstairs in light shoes, and letting him arrive at the bottom in steps.
00:01:38.000 --> 00:01:50.000
Cutters cleaned up every story. Their job was to create a coherent hall out of thousands of feet of film. Most feature films were 5 to 7 reels in length, one reel consisting of approximately 1,000 feet.
00:01:50.000 --> 00:02:07.000
A cost-efficiency study of the motion-picture industry in 1916, recommended women to the amount of footage shot to twice the anticipated length of the finished film, but acknowledged that workers have been known to shoot up to 6 times as much film as the length of the edited negative.
00:02:07.000 --> 00:02:19.000
Other sources report that directors exposed anywhere from 20,000 to 100,000 feet of raw film, for a 5-7 reel film, and up to 200,000 feet for a 10 reel.
00:02:19.000 --> 00:02:29.000
Refining 20 to 200 reels of film down to 5 to 10 reels was no easy task, and shooting practices in the silent period did not make it any easier.
00:02:29.000 --> 00:02:40.000
Most scenes were shot with only one or two cameras; only scenes in especially expensive productions, or in large and spectacular sets might be photographed from many angles.
00:02:40.000 --> 00:02:45.000
For example, at the Chaplain Studios three cameras were used for every scene.
00:02:45.000 --> 00:02:51.000
Cecil B. DeMille had four cameras photographing the attack on a fortress in his 'Joan the Woman', 1917.
00:02:51.000 --> 00:03:01.000
The lack of variety in camera angles and distances from the subject - long, medium, or close-up shots - made it difficult for cutters to create coherent, exciting films.
00:03:01.000 --> 00:03:15.000
In addition to "matching scenes, inserting close-ups, flashes, and titles, creating suspense, covering up plot inconsistencies, bad acting, and the absence of necessary shots. Cutters had to avoid offending the star, the director, or the author."
00:03:15.000 --> 00:03:20.000
[Laughter]
00:03:20.000 --> 00:03:27.000
Directors might have favorite shots, actors might appear in only certain scenes, and writers might object to changes in plot or emphasis.
00:03:27.000 --> 00:03:36.000
Cleaning up and finishing, being tactful with others, and patient with involved detail work, Cutters could use their homemaking skills in survival.
00:03:36.000 --> 00:03:40.000
For Patriarchy to survive women's efforts were to remain invisible.
00:03:40.000 --> 00:03:47.000
"Many of the services that women provide, unlike products are not readily apparent to the public or to themselves".
00:03:47.000 --> 00:03:56.000
The cutting in Hollywood narrative films, the finishing of a product, is also the definition and intention-invisible.
00:03:56.000 --> 00:04:00.000
"The purpose of editing was to cover its traces".
00:04:00.000 --> 00:04:07.000
Despite the skill and creativity involved in cutting, Bells Bohr and Still Bear, most conspicuously the names of male directors and producers.
00:04:07.000 --> 00:04:13.000
Cutters or editors' names appearing if at all, in small print along with the technicians.
00:04:13.000 --> 00:04:24.000
Editor Ralph Rosenbloom who began his career in the 1940s feels that this happens because acknowledging the cutters or editors' contribution would, "cut too close to the heart of the director's importance".
00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:32.000
Rosenbloom describes the personality of the career editor as, "one of modest ambition, and little urge personal credit".
00:04:32.000 --> 00:04:39.000
I guess you have to take into account that he's an editor himself, so you know take it with a grain of salt.
00:04:39.000 --> 00:04:45.000
Um whether or not the women cutters of the silent feature film period wanted personal credit, they did not receive it.
00:04:45.000 --> 00:04:58.000
Elizabeth Pickett, after writing and directing her own short, too-real film "King of the Turf", in Kentucky; was permitted to edit and title John Fords Kentucky Pride 1925, which he based on her film.
00:04:58.000 --> 00:05:10.000
Contemporary filmmaker Shirley Clark notes that "women have been editors for years, they have also allowed women to write films so the original idea is a women's as well as the finished product, but she gets no equal credit".
00:05:10.000 --> 00:05:14.000
The subordinate nature of the cutting job made this position permissible for women.
00:05:14.000 --> 00:05:19.000
Rosenbloom explains that women working as cutters did not threaten Patriarchal relations-
00:05:19.000 --> 00:05:20.000
This is what he says
00:05:20.000 --> 00:05:34.000
-trained from childhood to think of themselves as assistants rather than as originators they found in editing a safe outlet for their genius, and directors found in them the ideal combinations of aptitude and submission.
00:05:34.000 --> 00:05:44.000
In the earliest years of the feature film directors cut their own films until Clarance grabs a book written in 1915, Director Morrice Turner had been cutting his own film-
00:05:44.000 --> 00:05:54.000
-articles about studios in 1915 and 1960 mention divisions set aside "for the exclusive use of the directors when cutting down the productions".
00:05:54.000 --> 00:05:58.000
By 1917 and 1918 directors were supervising cutting.
00:05:58.000 --> 00:06:09.000
Screenwriter Peter Mill wrote in 1922, " while cutting and editing are not exactly a part of a director's duties he exercises a certain amount of supervision over the process".
00:06:09.000 --> 00:06:17.000
These directors were nearly all men, a list of 346 directors of silent films includes the names of only 8 women.
00:06:17.000 --> 00:06:23.000
Women could be cutters because they were subordinate to male directors thereby fitting into the patriarchal societal order.
00:06:23.000 --> 00:06:28.000
The ultimate illustration of this is the relationship of Josephine Lovett and John Robertson.
00:06:28.000 --> 00:06:42.000
At work she wrote and cut the films he directed, at home, they were husband and wife. Associated with domestic labor, an inconspicuous and subordinate position, cutting was a low-status job.
00:06:42.000 --> 00:06:58.000
When in the Soviet Union in 1922, Esther Shub began editing and timeline foreign in pre-revolution and Russian films "she brought intelligence, taste, and a sense of social responsibility into this generally despised employment".
00:06:58.000 --> 00:07:17.000
Here in the United States in 1922 the Andrews recommended assembling and cutting as ways of, "breaking into the movies" he went on to say, "once inside the studio as a worker, in any capacity, there's no telling what the result maybe if you are really qualified to do other and more important work".
00:07:17.000 --> 00:07:23.000
Cutting was a dead-end job, a way for industry to exploit the skills and ideas of creative women without upsetting the patriarchy.
00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:32.000
In Hartman's analysis of capitalism and patriarchy, she concludes that a patriarchal system existed prior to the development of capitalism.
00:07:32.000 --> 00:07:37.000
Before capitalism, men control women's labor in the family production unit.
00:07:37.000 --> 00:07:43.000
With the emergence of capitalism, men had difficulty maintaining their control over the labor power of women.
00:07:43.000 --> 00:07:52.000
"A direct personal system of control is translated into an indirect impersonal system of control, mediated by society-wide institutions".
00:07:52.000 --> 00:08:00.000
One means of maintaining the dominant position of men without hindering the growth of capitalism was to segregate women from men in the labor market.
00:08:00.000 --> 00:08:05.000
Assigning women to only certain aspects of the divided labor process.
00:08:05.000 --> 00:08:14.000
The jobs women could hold were "lower paid, considered less skilled, and often involved less exercised of authority or control".
00:08:14.000 --> 00:08:22.000
I was unable to find any evidence pertaining to cutters' wages, but the rest of the statement does indeed describe the position of a silent feature film cutter.
00:08:22.000 --> 00:08:27.000
Cutting, although it involved dexterity and creative judgment was considered a low-status job.
00:08:27.000 --> 00:08:33.000
Given little or no credit for their efforts, cutters performed work similar to domestic labor under the supervision of males.
00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:37.000
The woman film cutter fit safely into her patriarchal society.
00:08:37.000 --> 00:08:44.000
[Clapping]
00:08:44.000 --> 00:08:48.000
-Democratic Party
00:08:48.000 --> 00:08:52.000
I reluctantly become a contributor.
00:08:52.000 --> 00:08:55.000
Exercise one of the French lesson.
00:08:55.000 --> 00:09:03.000
[[French]] Je vais parler, Je suis apprends à parler, Je viens de parler
00:09:03.000 --> 00:09:10.000
I- I am going to speak, I am learning to speak, I am able to speak.
00:09:10.000 --> 00:09:11.000
Umm
00:09:11.000 --> 00:09:38.466
L’heure: il est une heure, il est trois heures, il est neuf heures, il est midi ou minuit, il est une heure et quart, il est trois heures et demi, il est neuf heures moins le quart, il est midi vingt ou minuit vingt.
00:09:42.000 --> 00:09:52.000
Il est midi. Je dînerai à sept heures du soir, mais je vais déjeuner à midi un quatre [quart].
00:09:52.000 --> 00:09:58.000
Jean [[tombre?]] [tombe] il vient de sommeil, sept heures.
00:09:58.000 --> 00:10:03.000
Allons, lever-toi [lève-toi] tout suit! Allons, début!
00:10:03.000 --> 00:10:11.000
Il est trop tôt, maman. J'ai un cours [[se mille?]]. Je vais me lever tout à l'heure.
00:10:11.000 --> 00:10:19.000
Non, Jean, tu n'as pas le temps. Tu vas arriver en retard à l'école.
00:10:19.000 --> 00:10:23.000
Enfin, Jan se lever [lève].
00:10:23.000 --> 00:10:32.000
Il vient de faire sa toilette; il est en train de prendre son petit-déjeuner, huit heures moins le quatre [quart].
00:10:32.000 --> 00:10:42.000
Bientôt, on va fermer les portes de l'école. Allons, Jean, marche vite! Vite!
00:10:42.000 --> 00:10:51.000
Encore une minute. Encore une seconde. Dans une moment, tu vas trouver les portes fermées.
00:10:51.000 --> 00:10:57.000
Ah! Tu es arrive [arrivé] en temps, quand même. Il est huit heures, juste.
00:10:57.000 --> 00:11:04.000
Au revoir. Jean, bonne journée, et, demain, lever-toi [lève-toi] à l'heure.
00:11:04.000 --> 00:11:10.000
"Un demi-heure," c'est la même chose de "thirty minutes."
00:11:10.000 --> 00:11:20.000
Ou "un quart d'heure," c'est la même chose de "quinze minutes," "fifteen minutes."
00:11:20.000 --> 00:11:24.000
"Tôt" is the same thing as "tard," which is "late."
00:11:24.000 --> 00:11:36.000
"Il est juste midi," "il est peu après-midi," c'est la même chose--"it is almost midday," "it is almost noon," --or "midnight."
00:11:36.000 --> 00:11:51.000
"Le sommeil," "Pierre avait sommeil" c'est the same thing as "il avait envie de dormir" ou "il voulait dormir," "maintenant, il dort."
00:11:51.000 --> 00:11:58.000
Le sommeil is sleep. Pierre is asleep.
00:11:58.000 --> 00:12:03.000
He has gone to bed, or he has gone to sleep.
00:12:03.000 --> 00:12:12.000
Um, "il voulait dormir," I don't know what that means.
00:12:12.000 --> 00:12:18.000
Now, he sleeps. He wants to go to bed. "Now he sleeps," I think that's what it means.
00:12:18.000 --> 00:12:26.000
Je vois, je revois, demain à l'école, Jean reverra ses camarades.
00:12:26.000 --> 00:12:37.000
I see, I recall, yesterday at school, John saw his comrades.
00:12:37.000 --> 00:12:42.952
Oh, I see, je vois, I see; je revois, I, I saw.
00:12:46.000 --> 00:12:53.000
La phrase française. "Qui vu-tu?," ["Qui as-tu vu?"] "Qui vois-tu?," "Je vois Pierre."
00:12:53.000 --> 00:12:56.000
Who'd you see? I saw Pierre.
00:12:56.000 --> 00:13:03.000
Qui attends, attends-tu? J'attends Marie.
00:13:03.000 --> 00:13:09.000
Que dites-tu? [dis] Je dit mon [[mom?]]
00:13:09.000 --> 00:13:14.000
Que faire-tu? [fais] Je fais, je fais un gâteau.
00:13:14.000 --> 00:13:19.000
À quoi--À qui parles-tu? Je parle à Jean.
00:13:19.000 --> 00:13:23.000
Avec qui jouer-tu? [joues] Je joue avec Paul.
00:13:23.000 --> 00:13:29.000
À quoi penses-tu? Je pense aux vaicances--aux vacances.
00:13:29.000 --> 00:13:41.000
Avec quoi joues-tu? Je joue avec un [une] balle. Avec quoi... joues-tu?
00:13:41.000 --> 00:13:46.000
Est-ce que tu--this is exercise--Est-ce que tu as une montre, Pierre?
00:13:46.000 --> 00:13:53.000
Non, je n'ai pas de montre, uh, j'ai une cloche--a clock.
00:13:53.000 --> 00:13:56.000
I forgot how to say clock.
00:13:56.000 --> 00:14:04.000
Quelle heure est-il? Il est... uh, minuit moins un quatre [quart].
00:14:04.000 --> 00:14:15.000
À quelle heure vas-tu déjeuner? Je vais déjeuner dans une quatre [un quart] d'heure, je vais déjeuner à neuf heures moins une quatre [un quart].
00:14:15.000 --> 00:14:25.000
Tu vas déjeuner tout à l'heure, à juste huit heures.
00:14:25.000 --> 00:14:31.000
Il, il va déjeuner à midi un--I don't know what that one requires. I...
00:14:31.000 --> 00:14:40.000
He goes to his meal at, at une quatre [un quart], à midi et une quatre [un quart].
00:14:40.000 --> 00:14:48.000
Il va déjeuner, il va déjeuner à midi, mm, un quatre [quart].
00:14:48.000 --> 00:15:03.000
Moins! Uh, à midi, uh, neuf heures et moins une quatre [un quart].
00:15:03.000 --> 00:15:20.000
"You will eat at-- Let us eat-- Nous avons déjeuner à trois heures. Let us eat at 3 o'clock.
00:15:20.000 --> 00:15:35.476
Vous, vous avez déjeuner à midi, uh, et dix minutes.
00:15:40.000 --> 00:15:58.000
Ils, ils ont déjeuner à--they will have dinner at--ils ont déjeuner à dix heures.
00:15:58.000 --> 00:16:21.000
Moi, je viens de finir mon repas; mon assiette est sale. Toi aussi, tu as de finir.
00:16:21.000 --> 00:16:39.000
I am going to finish my-- I have finished-- I am going to finish my meal; my service is dirty.
00:16:39.000 --> 00:16:56.000
You also-- you must finish. Tu as fini-- tu as de finir. You have to finish, tu as de finir.
00:16:56.000 --> 00:17:06.000
Marie aussi a de finir. Marie also has to finish.
00:17:06.000 --> 00:17:15.000
Nous, nous avons de boit toute l'eau. We, we drank all the water.
00:17:15.000 --> 00:17:21.000
La bataille est finie. The battle is finished.
00:17:21.000 --> 00:17:46.000
Elles aussi, they also, um, have, uh... Elles aussi, elles aussi ont de boit leur eau.
00:17:46.000 --> 00:17:54.000
They, les glasses sont vides. The glass is empty.
00:17:54.000 --> 00:18:11.000
Je regrien, no, je rien déjeuner. Tu vas de déjeuner. Il va de déjeuner.
00:18:11.000 --> 00:18:27.070
Elles vont de déjeuner. Vous avez de déjeuner. Ils ont de déjeuner. Nous
00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:38.000
Nous avons de déjeuner.
00:18:38.000 --> 00:18:43.000
[[?]] Lesson one. The last part of it I didn't understand that well.
00:18:43.000 --> 00:18:49.000
This is lesson two. L'année, les mois, les saisons, au je préfère.
00:18:49.000 --> 00:18:55.000
Uh [[coughs]], the year, the month, the seasons I prefer.
00:18:55.000 --> 00:19:02.000
Dis-moi, Paulette, Paulette, ira tu en France l'année pro--prochaine?
00:19:02.000 --> 00:19:13.000
Non, je, je suis allée déjà l'année dernière, pendant les vacances au mois de juillet.
00:19:13.000 --> 00:19:18.000
Il faisait beau et très chaud.
00:19:18.000 --> 00:19:32.000
Il ne pleut jamais à Paris en été? Mais si, il pleut quelquefois, mais la pluie ne dure pas longtemps.
00:19:32.000 --> 00:19:40.000
Pendant que j'étais à Paris, il a pleut seulement trois fois.
00:19:40.000 --> 00:19:55.000
Tell me, Paulette, were you in France last year? No, I, I came just before the end of last year, during the vacation in the month of, um, July.
00:19:55.000 --> 00:20:02.000
It was beautiful and very warm.
00:20:02.000 --> 00:20:07.000
It never rains in Paris. Does it ever rain in Paris, uh, in the summer?
00:20:07.000 --> 00:20:20.000
Um, perhaps. It, it, it rains sometimes, but the, uh, rain does not last for a long time.
00:20:20.000 --> 00:20:28.000
Pendant que j'étais à Paris, il a pleut seulement trois fois. When I was in Paris it rained only three times.
00:20:28.000 --> 00:20:33.000
L'hivre [hiver], the winter. Le printemps is the spring.
00:20:33.000 --> 00:20:40.000
Now, un temps est un hiver et il fait mauvais et il pleut souvent.
00:20:40.000 --> 00:20:45.000
Alors, il fait humide et il y a du brouillard.
00:20:45.000 --> 00:20:52.000
Quelque fois en janvier ou en février, il neige, et il fait très froid.
00:20:52.000 --> 00:21:02.000
Les, les oiseaux, les, les oiseaux sont malheureux. Ils ont faim et froid, jusqu'à, jusqu'au printemps.
00:21:02.000 --> 00:21:17.000
Ils n'aimer [aiment] pas l'hiver, ils préfèrent la saison chaude, heureusement le printemps, [[va?]] après l'hiver et l'été, [[va?]] avant l'automne.
00:21:17.000 --> 00:21:25.000
But in autumn and in winter, uh, it's bad; it rains often.
00:21:25.000 --> 00:21:33.000
Then it is humid, and, what is um, brouillard, what is, I can't, I guess I don't know.
00:21:33.000 --> 00:21:39.000
Sometimes in January and, or in February, it snows, and it is very cold.
00:21:39.000 --> 00:21:51.090
The birds and unhappy. They are hungry and cold, uh, duri--, until Septe--, until spring.
00:21:55.000 --> 00:22:00.000
{Speaker 1} They do not like the winter. They prefer the warm seasons.
00:22:00.000 --> 00:22:14.000
Happily, the spring comes after April--after winter, and it arri--, and summer arrives, before autumn.
00:22:14.000 --> 00:22:28.000
En France, il ne neige jamais en juillet. Uh, [[ça dit?]] au mois de juillet. Mais il fait toujours froid en décembre.
00:22:28.000 --> 00:22:35.000
En été, il pleut quelque(s) fois, mais en hivre [hiver], il pleut souvent.
00:22:35.000 --> 00:22:50.000
In France, uh, it never snows in July, or during the month of July, but it sometimes-- it is cold--
00:22:50.000 --> 00:22:57.000
But it is always cold in December.
00:22:57.000 --> 00:23:05.000
In summer it sometimes rains, but in winter, it rains more often.
00:23:05.000 --> 00:23:16.000
L'année dernière c'est la même chose as l'année prochaine. Last year; the next year.
00:23:16.000 --> 00:23:20.000
Toujours; jamais. Always; never.
00:23:20.000 --> 00:23:25.000
Je préfère; j'aime meilleur(e). I prefer; I like better.
00:23:25.000 --> 00:23:40.000
Cet homme est malheureuse [malheureux]; un malheur est arrivée dans sa famille. That man is unhappy; a unhappiness came to his family.
00:23:40.000 --> 00:23:50.000
Cet homme est heureuse [heureux]; il a du bonheur. That man is happy; he has happiness.
00:23:50.000 --> 00:24:04.000
Préférer, the verb "to prefer." Je préfère, tu préfères, il préfère, nous préférons, vous préférez, ils préférons [préfèrent].
00:24:04.000 --> 00:24:21.000
J'ai préféré hier; je préféra [préférai] demain. Je préférera? Je pref-- pr-- je-- Je préférera. Je préférerai.
00:24:21.000 --> 00:24:28.000
J'ai préféré; je préférera [préférai]. Non, je préférera.
00:24:28.000 --> 00:24:35.000
Je préfère; I prefer. Tu préfères; you prefer. Il préfère; he prefers.
00:24:35.000 --> 00:24:48.000
Nous préférons; they [we] prefer. Vous préférez; you prefer, the plural. Ils préférons [préfèrent]; they prefer, masculine.
00:24:48.000 --> 00:24:53.000
Euh, je, j'ai préfère [préféré] hier. I prefer [preferred] winter [yesterday].
00:24:53.000 --> 00:25:05.000
Je préféra [préférai] demain. I will prefer tomorrow. I will be, I will prefer tomorrow.
00:25:05.000 --> 00:25:11.000
{Speaker 2} Then, that seems everybody says fine, there's interdependence, there's a sharing.
00:25:11.000 --> 00:25:23.000
But when you continuously show Black and East Indian children an image of a society of individuals that they can never be, then you have a negation of themselves.
00:25:23.000 --> 00:25:38.000
So that what has happened is that the television programs that are transplanted are designed for a culture that is concerned about fried chicken, about having certain kinds of bubble gum.
00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:44.000
So then for people there, what, what does this do? It simply transforms their food habits.
00:25:44.000 --> 00:25:56.000
So people who get used to eating rice and fish suddenly develop a craving for French fried potatoes and fried chicken, which changes their food habits, so that communi--
00:25:56.000 --> 00:25:59.000
{Speaker 3} Changes the buying patterns of nations as well.
00:25:59.000 --> 00:26:11.000
{Speaker 2} Absolutely, I think that we have constantly, I think in the UN report, I think we have tended to neglect the fact that there is money in communication--big, plenty money.
00:26:11.000 --> 00:26:15.000
And therefore, it becomes necessary to penetrate the communication system.
00:26:15.000 --> 00:26:27.000
One interesting thing I think [[?]] mentioned is to me is when President Nixon left and went to China, the one thing he left behind was this enormous communications technology.
00:26:27.000 --> 00:26:35.000
Because the tech--, communications technology to a large extent can affect how your body politic functions and thinks.
00:26:35.000 --> 00:26:47.000
{Speaker 3} So in addition to television programs being marketed to these countries, are you saying that western companies are continuing to have their commercials [[laid?]] in as well?
00:26:47.000 --> 00:26:57.000
{Speaker 2} Certainly if you look at the Caribbean, where, where they have, they have a lot of these commercials that are integrated with with program
00:26:57.000 --> 00:27:08.000
So that, you see, the commercials-- Sometimes one of the difficulties with most programming is to distinguish between the commercial and the program, so that there is an integration between the commercial and the program.
00:27:08.000 --> 00:27:17.000
And in the context of the Third World countries, it means changing their political, cultural, and intellectual habits.
00:27:17.000 --> 00:27:29.000
{Speaker 3} Professor Vanden, did we see a similar situation in countries like Vietnam, southeast Asian countries? That were under western con-- influence?
00:27:29.000 --> 00:27:36.000
{Speaker 4} I think during the, the war. This being from 1955 until 1975.
00:27:36.000 --> 00:27:46.000
Saigon is almost like any kind of the city [cities] we see in this country even [[?]] and all this.
00:27:46.000 --> 00:27:55.000
Now it is a very different situation, now there's no-- [[?]] experimenting and education.
00:27:55.000 --> 00:28:03.000
But to go back to the programming, I would like to quote from a [an] address by Sarah Power.
00:28:03.000 --> 00:28:11.000
She's a deputy-- she was a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Economic Club of Detroit, on December 5th 1980.
00:28:11.000 --> 00:28:29.000
She said, and I quote her, "Even at the time when East [[?]] population revolution, as anyone can attest who has enjoyed an evening of Kojak on the Surinamese television or a John Wayne movie in Jakarta, the economic implication is very pressing."
00:28:29.000 --> 00:28:41.000
She [[?]], "and indeed, there is hardly any segment of the U.S. economy which is not directly affected by communications and increasingly dependent for its wellbeing on international communication."
00:28:41.000 --> 00:28:58.000
So at least in my opinion, it is a question. The western transnational corporation or domination cannot exist or cannot make profit without imposing new taste, new products on the Third World.
00:28:58.000 --> 00:29:04.000
The Third World of course has two choices, either take it or leave it.
00:29:04.000 --> 00:29:12.000
Usually, you have in the Third World a group of people who say that "Well, let's take it and have a look at that, buy the technology, retrain our people,"
00:29:12.000 --> 00:29:20.000
"And later on, we're gonna go and get rid of the dependency from the U.S. [[?]]."
00:29:20.000 --> 00:29:27.000
But the problem is very different. As anyone knows, the technology of communication is extremely expensive.
00:29:27.000 --> 00:29:34.000
Once you get hooked into that, it's almost like a drug, either you have to escalate and buy it or you have to destroy your own problem.
00:29:34.000 --> 00:29:40.000
The second one [[is actually very important?]].
00:29:40.000 --> 00:29:43.000
Uh- Suppose now you are to produce a program which is good.
00:29:43.000 --> 00:29:48.000
It cost perhaps 500,000 dollars, and then discover [?].
00:29:48.000 --> 00:30:01.000
Here come [?] from the Western embassy, "Sir you can sell a better program, like I love [?], 100 dollars."
00:30:01.000 --> 00:30:04.000
You sure it's a [?] its only 100.
00:30:04.000 --> 00:30:12.000
Why spend 500,000 dollars to make the best program, and when your people get hooked on this, you again- [?] drug, you have to buy more of this program.
00:30:12.000 --> 00:30:19.000
So, I think we have to look at the information brought into today in the world.
00:30:19.000 --> 00:30:26.000
As I am at the front of this organization, and I remember vividly what in [?] happened in 1955.
00:30:26.000 --> 00:30:36.000
When the whole conference was disappointed to know that [?].
00:30:36.000 --> 00:30:41.000
But why the vote at the time, in 1955 so much white voters.
00:30:41.000 --> 00:30:46.000
I think the reason is very simple. It has something to do with international communication.
00:30:46.000 --> 00:31:00.000
He was the first colored man who bring out the reality of the colonized people, and also the first colored men [?] who actively opposed Nazism.
00:31:00.000 --> 00:31:05.000
While as you all know, that in this country we fought the war in Japan first.
00:31:05.000 --> 00:31:24.000
On the [?] in Germany, [?] who showed the complicity of uh vast national cooperation in this country with the Nazi regime, so I be [?] wishes the whole black pride commissions and UNESCO.
00:31:24.000 --> 00:31:29.400
We begin to look at the black community in this country as [?].
00:31:32.832
