Artikel für ein dänisches Literaturmagazin über den Film "Blood in the Mobile"

How horror stories prevent me from thinking about blood minerals

I was asked to write this article about the film Blood in the Mobile by Frank Poulsen for an edition of Morgenrøde, that would refer to a book with the title Det mørke kontinent? - Afrikabilleder i europæiske fortællinger om Congo by Frits Andersen. A book that I haven’t read. But I found it at the library. I skimmed through it and found it very inspiring. Being a cinema studies graduate I was amazed by the possibilities of the subject. Frits Andersen fills solely with literature 695 pages; what if you look at it from a cinematic angle?

I decided to go on a quest for some cinematic stereotypes, that Blood in the Mobile uses to depict Africa, the jungle and the Congo. I will focus on those 43 minutes when the film actually takes place in Africa. Abusing the film like this and not really treating its serious content demands a short statement:

I like Blood in the Mobile. I think Frank Poulsen is a very brave director. He creates awareness for the international mineral trade, something most of us don't know anything about, because it is both complex and hard to find information about it in the mass media. The film reveals the problems of the supply chain, that all the major electronic companies should have revealed years ago. This is a major success. On top of that the film addresses me personally. I use four mobile phones, so Blood in the Mobile makes me feel responsible for the situation in the DRC and I'm glad about that.

Stereotypes

Blood in the Mobile uses certain stereotypical means that originated in the fictional cinema industry. These cinematic means are interesting because they are often - if not mainly - perceived unconsciously. They are understood without understanding, giving the story a frame, a context of understanding.

Stereotype formation is according to Jörg Schweinitz, a German film theorist, understood as a special conventionalized form of schematization. In a theory frame of pragmatics and constructivism he sees stereotypization as an indispensable process in thinking, communication and ultimately also in behaviour; as a process however, whose tendency toward stabilization provokes after a while also the reverse, the critical and reflective questioning of established stereotypes. This process of stereotype formation and the dissolving of it can be seen everywhere: For example in the shape of the strollers, that get pushed through the cities by more men, and less women, a both evolving and dissolving stereotype.

Particularly influential and successful cultural products can become prototypical and dominate the culture of their respective era. Ferrari is the prototype for a race car, New York is the prototype for a city, Bowling for Columbine is the prototype of a whole series of documentaries, including Blood in the Mobile, if you focus on the way the director interacts with the characters in his film, staging himself as the driving force of the story.

These stereotypes can be traced down to all facettes of the film. The storytelling; the yawning woman leaves the courting man without hope. The visual content; the camera mounted on the bonnet of the car to be able to film two people talking together in a car whilst driving or the close up for scenes of increased emotionality. The soundtrack; the violins and the orchestra for melodramatic sequences, et cetera. These stereotypes help us read the film and describe exactly what some call media literacy or media competence. The more films you see, the faster you understand their stereotypes.

Many intellectuals don't like stereotypes, they connect it with surface, shine and no content, while the deep and opaque is the real thing. This is also a stereotype. On the contrary of being superficial, stereotypes are the very frame of our thinking, the railing so to speak, and there is nothing negative about them as long as they get critically reflected from time to time, just as Frits Andersen does in his book.

There seems to be a tendency in filmmaking to follow patterns that once worked until they don't work anymore and need to be redone. Apocalypse Now from Francis Ford Coppola is one of these extremely influential films. It is a film that is based on Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. So the film uses an old source, a story pattern that worked and reestablishes its actuality by putting it into the context of the Vietnam war. Like that the film becomes more readable and highly referential. Blood in the Mobile has several moments where Apocalypse Now is close at hand.

The horror story

Blood in the Mobile follows the same story structure as Apocalypse Now. Just like Captain Willard, who enters the jungle and ships upriver, closer and closer to General Kurtz, Frank Poulsen enters the DRC to get closer and closer to the Walikali mine. In both stories we get to know more about the actual goal of the trip and that the essence of it is horror.

When Frank Poulsen talks about the 85th brigade of the FARDC, that controls the Walikali mine, he says it has gone solo and is operating completely on their own. This is exactly what they say about General Kurtz. He's out there operating without any decent restraint. The part of Blood in the Mobile which takes place in the DRC starts with Frank Poulsen saying:

I'm on my way to the Congo. I want to see where these minerals are coming from, and to see with my own eyes if they are financing war. Congo was made a private slave colony a hundred years ago by the Belgian King Leopold the 2nd. He became one of the richest men in the world by selling rubber from the Congo to western companies. It was the beginning of the industrialisation and the booming car industry was completely dependent on rubber from the Congo. Today the congo is one of the poorest countries in the world even though the country is so rich on natural resources. During the last 15 years more than 5 million people have died in the Eastern Congo - in a war between several armed groups. And it is estimated that not less than 300'000 women have been raped.

How do I find my way into the mining business in a place like this?

While he begins with facts, that are very informative, he suddenly ends the voice over with the judgmental sentence How do I find my way into the mining business in a place like this? Does this mean, that he sees the DRC as a dangerous land where rational reason doesn't work anymore, where he goes to a place beyond reason? Just like in Apocalypse Now, where Kurtz's reasoning leads him to the conclusion, that the killing doesn't matter anymore, because when everyone kills, even Kurtz's selfmade inferno becomes marginal? Like Willard suggests, I began to wonder what they really had against Kurtz. It wasn't just insanity and murder; there was enough of that to go around for everyone. Is that what Frank Poulsen wants to say? I doubt it, but he definitely falls for some storytelling stereotypes, which are not going hand in hand with the rest of the film.

Because Frank Poulsen does meet a lot of reason on his journey. For example Chance, the 16 year old boy, who already worked for three years in the mine to earn money to start up a family, but who has understood, that this will not work out and actually only goes back to the mine, because Frank asks him to show him the way.

Instead of focusing on the mining trade itself, there are sentences that build up suspense. I'm told that it can be dangerous to ask too many questions here. Why? Because it is dangerous or because a story of a filmmaker in the DRC is supposed to be dangerous? In this context even the facts sound like amplifier of the danger.

The only way of flying into the Congo is by UN peacekeeping forces.

There is no place in the world where the UN has so many peace keeping troops.

The road block, where Bernard and Frank are getting stopped by the national army of the DRC serves also as an element of suspense. The scene portrays how a soldier in Goma stops the car, in which Frank, his cameraman, a lady and Bernard are sitting in. The soldier wants to know why they film and if they are from the press. He repeatedly asks the driver to turn off the motor, which isn't done. From a certain moment of this scene, we can hear a synthetic sound in the background like a fog horn from a boat, that underlines the stressing situation and creates suspense and uncertainty. Frank shows the papers which he got from the army leaders and the car can obviously pass through, because after a cut we see Frank entering Bernard’s house.

The same question as above applies here. Why this sound, when the story and the situation are revealing enough? I do believe that they felt stressed when a guy talking hectically in French and having a machine gun around his shoulder asks Bernard to stop the motor. But the situation itself would, presented in another way, also be adequate to show how papers, even in a country that is in a state of emergency, still are helping to get along. But this would be positive and does not fit to the horror stories we know. So the question is, if Frank Poulsen feels endangered, because it really is a dangerous situation or because the stereotype of the situation at the road block leads him to the conclusion, that this might be a dangerous situation? And would Bernard, who must be used to these road blocks, then really keep the engine running?

And even Bernard, the local UN official is telling horror stories:

You're going to Bisie in Walikali? Where they kill people. Pay attention. Anything can happen you know. These people are out of control, so anything can happen man. And you'd be deep in the forest, 90 kilometres in the forest, this is not a joke, so be careful, be careful.

The closer we get to the jungle, the more suspense we experience by watching the film. Bernard trumps everything by telling the story of the woman Massika, who was raped three times and forced to chew the penis of her husband, who shortly before has been chopped into pieces in front of her by armed groups. According to Bernard they raped her on top of the remnants of her husband. He finishes with Walikali, I think you're going there, but pay attention.

Just before that, in the same scene, Bernard actually explained the whole trade line of the minerals from the miners through congolese business men to international companies and the armed forces, who buy new weapons with the revenue to continue the vicious circle. So why adding the horror story? Because it is catchy? Because it is necessary for a story in the Congo? The lightning of Bernard in this scene is in plain chiaroscuro, full of contrast, exactly like General Kurtz in the scene where Captain Willard finally meets him. So the light anticipates the content of what Bernard will tell him: The horror, the horror...

Just as Captain Willard in Apocalypse Now hears more and more rumours about General Kurtz, who went wild somewhere in the woods with a bunch of Indians, Frank hears more details about the horrors in the region of Walikali, the area where he is planing to go.

This artificial fictionalising of the film does in my opinion not any good for the main concern of the film, activating people to change something. Who wants to go there and do something about it, if it really is as dangerous and out of control?

But in a way I think Blood in the Mobile does also make huge effort to get away from the stereotypical stories. It does show the real issues being at hand in the DRC. And I want to thank Frank Poulsen for that, even though he can't get rid of the stereotype of the wild, dark and dangerous jungle. And with the following little observation I would like to finish this article: The most blatant scene of exoticism happens, when the group that is walking through the woods to the mines, is eating some kind of a big guinea pig roasted on the open fire. The scene has no use whatsoever story-wise than portraying that you can eat this animal and that this is somehow interesting enough to show in a film. Frank Poulsen would never have shown them grilling sausages. That we don't realise this shallowness lays bare our expectations for a film that takes place in the dark heart of Africa.

Moki - Gutes kommt aus Hamburg

Eine Künstlerin, die mich seit fünf Jahren beschäftigt.

Kino - Marie Antoinette

Marie Antoinette

(gesehen am 23.12.06 Im Arthouse Le Paris - Zürich)

Soeben komm ich zurück aus dem wirklich erstaunlichen Film "Marie Antoinette" von Sofia Coppola. Man kann zur historischen Korrektheit sagen was man will, aber man kann nicht sagen, dieser Film sei nicht historisch korrekt. Er ist quasi anders historisch falsch als das, was man gemeinhin als "historisch korrekt" bezeichnet. Zum Beispiel im für uns Europäer wirklich bedauernswerten Umstand, dass er nicht in Französisch gesprochen ist. Er ist eine besondere Sichtweise auf eine Epoche, die wir normalerweise mit Untergang der Königshäuser und Aufstieg der Menschenrechte in Verbindung setzen. Was dabei in der herkömmlichen historischen Sichtweise oft vernachlässigt wird, ist der Umstand, wie "natürlich" diese Königshäuser damals waren, als die französische Revolution, die ja gemeinhin "das Gute" schlechthin darstellt, über Europa hinweggefegt ist.

Der Film bietet inhaltlich vor allem die Ansicht einer Frau, die als fleischliche Dichtmasse zwischen Österreich und Frankreich herhalten muss. Diese Rolle wird genial herausgearbeitet indem man vor allem das sieht, was man in herkömmlichen Kostümfilmen nicht sieht. Das komplizierte Übergeben eines unermesslich bedeutungsvollen weiblichen Körpers - 14-jährige Herzogin aus Österreich - zwischen zwei Königreichen und das Einarbeiten dessen in eine neue kulturelle Umgebung - Versailles - vor etwas mehr als zwei Jahrhunderten.

Sofia Coppola (Regie) und Kirsten Dunst (Marie Antoinette) operieren an der Differenz zwischen adlig-formellem Verhalten und dem was man heute als "Mensch sein" bezeichnen würde. Dabei fällt der Film nicht in das Klischee der ewig verschwenderischen Adligen, sondern liefert im Gegenteil völlig nachvollziehbare Gründe für Marie Antoinettes Verhalten. In den Bettszenen mit dem französischen Thronfolger werden die beiden schlicht als zu jung und überfordert dargestellt. Es ist zwar der Mann der irgendwie nicht kann/will, aber es ist auch die Frau, die darauf nichts zu machen weiss. Die Verschwend- und Spielsucht Marie Antoinettes wird mit der Teenie-Zeit von Heute parallel geschaltet, wo man sich die Birne volllaufen lässt und betrunken durch den Wald rennt oder sich dem anderen Geschlecht in kicherndem Unwissen nähert. Hier wird eine vergangene Epoche näher über den Körper und dessen normalem Verhalten erklärt als dies bisher geschehen ist. Das ist nicht nur erfrischend, sondern auch plausibel.
Im Verlauf der Geschichte lernt man so einiges über "die Geschichte", was man sich so nicht gedacht hätte, zum Beispiel dass die Geburt eines Thronfolgers ein Schauspiel mit Freikarten für die Hofadligen war.
Alles in allem werden die meisten Leute dies für einen "Frauenfilm" halten. Das liegt wahrscheinlich daran, dass im Film viele Kleider angezogen werden, Schuhe anprobiert, Konfekt gegessen, getratscht wird, etc. Ausserdem ist da natürlich eine weibliche Regisseurin, die eine weibliche historische Figur in ihrem Film vorstellt. Wer den Fokus auf diese Umstände legt und meint, ihn hiermit eingeordnet zu haben, verpasst leider den grössten Teil des Films. Natürlich ist der Film von einer Frau gemacht, und natürlich sieht man den Unterschied zu einem Historienfilm eines Mannes, aber das wirklich Starke an Sofia Coppolas neuem Film ist, dass sie gerade auf diesem Umstand nicht herumreitet, sondern ihn als gegeben Fakt unproblematisiert miteinbezieht. Das ist zwar nicht historisch korrekt, was auch immer das ist, aber eben anders historisch.