Jamaica Arise: The 75 Year History of the PNP

1. What was the role that the People's National Party (PNP) played in the anti-colonial struggle?

The People's National Party was a reaction to the treats by the English colonies (mostly exploitation). It was created the year 1938, before the WW2 and since it's creation they implemented reforms to help the country , most importantly in education during the 50's and the right to vote.

When It was created was primarily supported by the middle class of Jamaica , then it expanded during the incoming years. Their prime objective was the general welfare. They were ruling during the time that the country got it's independency.

2. What was/is the role of women throughout the 75 years of the PNP? (Give at least 3 examples)

The PNP's women movement was created kinda late(1973) and they made some legislations to give them the rights that they deserved. They got laws that legislate their work fairly and a supportive measure in case of maternity.

An important figure would be Edna Manley which helped through the culture and art . She was the wife of the founder of the party. She designed the logo of the party.

I would like to mention that recently they got a female president of the party, Portia Simpson-Miller, which also become the prime minister of Jamaica during the year 2006.

3. ¿How did the implementation of democratic socialism affect the Jamaican people?

I would point out different views. That was during the Cold War, the world was splitted between Capitalism and Communism. For the public eye they were "communists".

Then again, this changed brought good things like reforms in health, education and economy. After the first step they got into internal struggles due to violence and inflation, which led to problems that stayed during the years.

4. How does the PNP justify privatization and its role in creating a path of neoliberal reforms in Jamaica?

They thought that they could overcome the economic crisis that they were facing, they tried to pay the external debts with the new incomes that they would get (they had an inflation of 400%).

However, the turn of these events changed the party to a more neoliberal side in order to keep the country afloat. They changed with the globalization that the world was experimenting.

5. How do you compare the role of PNP in the film, Ghett'a Life (Lenny Thompson, Derrick's Father) versus the documentary?

We have two different views. In Ghett'a Life the PNP and the goverment were corrupt people that were selfish and just cared about the power that the politic charges can give (I mean, rule over). While in the documentary, everything is perfect, they didn't complain about anything that the party could get wrong.

Ghett'a Life Review

1. Who was your favorite character (s) from the film? Why?

I would say that Derrick is my favorite character. I think that they made him a likeable guy, the performance of Kevoy Burton is on point. You can feel everything about the passion, even though the place to practice is on the opposite party's place. I think that he is relatable trying to be like his role model and wants to become the very best (in the fighting scene).

2. How does the film compare to the other Jamaican films from the 70s? (Besides visual effects, think about the plot and character development).

This one might be kinda tricky. I was surprised that this wasn't an old film. The main problem with them I think is how the direction of the films went. I think that they achieve a point trying to show what reality was and is like. But I think that in this case they went all in with the plot (at least to get a better grasp on what's going on). While in the old movies they tried to make a good story telling that didn't work (I'm looking at you , Rockers). 
Also, the characters now are more deep, they have their personal struggles that they have to overcome by themselves (obviously, society is a problem too, but that's not the main focus as in other films).

3. How are woman portrayed in this film? Is it a little or big advancement compared to the films from the 1970's?

I think that the main difference is that they are not treated anymore as an object or just a supportive character or love interest for the protagonist, and that's good , or at least that's the case of Dawn Thompson. I would say that it makes a little difference, but it's something.

You have to be able to make a setting or context without changing much, and that's a bummer, because in this case even if you try to make something really different , people could notice that things might not be as you presented them (if you try to make more powerful women), We already know that Jamaican society is ruled by males so it's pretty difficult to do that in this case. But at least they tried.

This one was my favorite movie (even tho some actors overreacted during some fight scenes)

The Pain Tree [review]

1. Who is your favorite character from the story and what kind of background do they come from? Why? (Use examples from Michelle Cliff's essay, If I Could Write This in Fire, I Would Write This in Fire)

I really like the protagonists of the texts. Larissa acted like a mother to Lorraine. You can sympathise with Lorraine because she could understand what really happened. The way the text is written shows her pain and regret for not appreciating what she lost and didn't notice and what really happened. It's not her fault, it's nobody's fault, just the way the society concieved it.

2. Why do you think Lorraine’s mother mocks the workers that want independence from England?

She was an old lady that wanted them to keep working as their slaves. She cannot see another realities or understand that even with another colour skin humans should have rights. As you can understand from the text, the workers were captured and brought to their houses to do housekeeping or any kind of work. As in cliff's essay you can notice that the whites had a lot of privileges. 

3. What is a “pain tree” and how does it play a role in the story?

It's a tradition that they (the workers) got into. They nailed a tree. It's some kind of metaphor. You use it to free yourself from the pain, you give it to the trunk. You pass you pain , but it also is selfish to my point of view. Larissa compares her situation. When she expresses that the protagonist might not need the tree, is because she reffers to her as naive or maybe happy, just because she doesn't have problems like hers. 


4. What is the meaning of the line “people like me would always inherit the land, but they were the ones who already possessed the Earth”?

It refers to the young people, the whites ones, that will live in that land, but it also means that they don't get what they might have, they don't give it a meaning like the wise people that habited before did.

Not the best review - Rockers

1. How does Leroy "Horsemouth" Wallace from Rockers compare to Ivan Martin from The Harder They Come?

Ivan was a selfish man that didn't care about the methods to achieve what he wanted. He had a big ego, one that ended up killing him. Horsemouth on the other hand was an easygoing man that just cared about living his life. He was simple and he was admired by his friends, they even helped him during the bad times , like when the mafia stole his bike.
So, by the end of the day he gave everything to them (I mean, taking the things back), while Ivan died alone in the end.

2. What is your favorite scene from the film? Why?

I really like the scene where Leroy goes with a friend to the dancefloor and they change the music to "Soul" . Then his friend takes out the dj and horsemouth is just going with the flow and the police tries to charge in to take back the control over the consoles. After that Leroy just engages the police with his sick moves and the people cheer for him.

3.  Did you like/dislike the film? Why/Why Not?

It's a fun movie, but it feels rushed. It's not bad, just very fast paced and sometimes the montage is just bad, you don't get what's happening and some things are unexplainable , like the part where the daughter of the mafia guy calls horsemouth, how did she get the number? and the part where the henchmen just hit leroy but they don't steal the bike again. Overall , you can get the idea of the movie , but you have to try.
I would watch it again though.

Not the best review- The Harder they come

1. In general, what did you like and dislike about the film?

I really like that the story is about a man that tries his best and gets everything wrong by the end of the day. Not because he wanted to , but because "the world makes you that way". I think that the presentation is good sometimes and horrible in some other ways. I know that by any means that the movie is not the best movie at all. But I think that it reflects a lot of the culture of that place and time and by that I would say that is worth a shot.
I dislike that the film doesn't feel very cohesive sometimes and you can't tell how much time has passed. 

2. Who is your favorite character from the film?

I would say that "Ivan" it's my favorite character, not because i really liked him a lot, but there wasn't much development of the others in the film. He is not a bad man, just someone that fall to the temptation and the opportunities that were in that place (very few to be honest). You can understand his motives and the way he changes, not because he needed to, but because he wanted to. You can see how Ivan changes but you can't identify with him at all.

3. Would you recommend this film to someone, why/why not?

Yes and No. I would say watch it if you want to compare and learn about the culture of that time and place but I wouldn't watch it again. I don't hate it, It's not a bad movie overall but it has many flaws. The music I would say it's the strong point of this one, it introduces to the people to the industry and the struggle of making music, the catchy reggae tunes are perfect. The performance of the actors it's a mix, sometimes they do a great job and sometimes they overeact , but you can let it slide.

Not the best review - The bang bang club

1. In general, what did you like and dislike about the film?

>What I really liked about this is that it shows a new reality that is the life of the photographers during the apartheid (or at least by the end of it). The quality of the film is awesome, the fireshoots and the acting by the protagonists and the people that are nearby them during the manifestations and the riots.

On the opposite side I didn't understand the time lapse in the film because it's not explicit at all. But the major downside are the protagonists, I don't get some of their motives and the way they act towards what's a bad thing and the money.


2.  How does the film make you think about your future role as journalists and film makers/producers/creators/directors?

>It hits me hard to be honest. The movie in the first place talked about the passion of being a Photographer and how you must risk a lot to gain a lot. To me passion is what make things interesting and during the movie it's shown that most of the protagonists are awful.

But I don't blame them, I don't think that anyone wants to be a bad person, I think that they get used to the violence and they have to endure themselves in order to hold up. It's not their job at all to help the people directly, yes, you may try something out if it is safe, but sometimes you can't save everyone. I'm afraid to become like them.

3.  In this film, and various of the other films, we have seen how black South Africans went to vote massively in April 1994 to seal the downfall of the apartheid system with the electoral triumph of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, now more than 20 years later, we see many of the problems originated during the apartheid are still present such as land inequality, class inequality, unemployment, etc.

How have the dreams from the anti-apartheid struggle played out since the ANC has been in power? (Remember to use the article South Africa’s Coming Two-Party System)

>The whole problems are the Politics. After the ANC tooked the power it was good and bad at the same time. Some of the new rules applied like the Freedom Charter that wanted to help the people. But not everything was good, the whole part of the economic system was the center of the country and even with that there was corruption.

So at the end of the day they changed the system with the focus on the economy and not the social aspect, which is bad in my opinion. Injustice is still there for some people in every way.

Not the best review - Cry Freedom

 1. Who was your favorite character from the film? Why?

>To be honest , I really liked both of the protagonists. Donald Woods (played by Kevin Kline) is an excelent character that gets a change in the movie. He is the editor a newspaper in South Africa during the Apartheid. If we compare him with other men he is not shown as a bad guy but neither the good one. Then he meets Steve Biko and the story unfolds. I really like that he can understand different lives and tries his best to be part of the help against the apartheid and the truth. He is a likeable character that represents what a journalist should be.

On the other hand we have Steve Biko (Played by Denzel Washington) , he is an activist anti apartheid that was a pacifist. Steve changes Donald for good, he teaches him about what is not shown by the white man, what apartheid is about to black people and the privileges that the white man has. He was a wise man that can analyze and comprehend the situation without feeling anger nor wrath against the whites.

2. What was your favorite scene from the film? Why?

>I really liked when Donald tries to escape. The whole segment is awesome. The way the plan was executed, how he tries to change his behavour and his appareance , the tension in the air that is reinforced with the music. At the same time we get to see his family trying to convince the police and it's a wonderful scene. We get to see how hurtful it is for the family and the struggle to get to the embassy.

3. How does the film differ from the other films? Use the article from The Guardian to help you

>In this movie it shown that the protagonists tries another way to fight , and that is without weapons. I could mention that Biko was part of the Black People's Convention that he founded. Another thing that i could point out is that in this film it is shown people (natives) not working in usual jobs and they were not tolerated by the white people in "normal" ones.
This film is not about any big milestone in the Apartheid at all (Like mandela's ones) or terrorism against the opressive goverment or soldiers, it's about what a normal man can do with ideas.

Not the best review- Kangamba

1. How does the film, Kangamba, show Cuban internationalism in Angola?

>The movie is about the politic of "Cuba must help the third world". Angola had internal struggles in which Cuba helped. They lend a hand with medical health services, education and (of course) their army to fight help in the war. The FAR was the Cuban army that tried to help Angola to get the Portuguese out of the country (or at least controlling it).

You could say that this is a propagandistic movie, because it was made by a Cuban director (Rogelio Paris), and in my point of view, it tries to glorify their people using the battle of Cangamba (place) to excuse the motivation of patriotis/nacionalism.

2. What was the most impactful scene for you? Why?

>I think that two segments can be the best scenes in the movie. The first one is when the Mario wakes up because of a bombing. Then the focus is the people and is running terrified for their lives. It's a powerful scene trying to show that war isn't something great nor pretty, that war can consume lives of innocent people and take places, memories and future.

The second scene is a follow up between the two forces fighting, the soldiers screaming and there is no music. Then the planes take out the enemy. It's a simple scene in my opinion, yet great, because it shows how fragile can the people be even with guns in their hands.

3. What was something you like and something you disliked about the film? Why?

>I really disliked and liked the film at the same time. I appreciate the fact that they tried to go for a film that wanted to be serious in all ways, but the problem is that the film itself tries too hard do be something that it can't be. The characters are just bad, they are just because the movie needs people on it. Mario dissapeared for about an hour and when he shows up he dies. I can understand the motive of the director making him go to the village and show that war can change places and it destroys everything and all that, but Mario stays there for some days to have any feeling.

The execution is a mess, they spent the budget in explosions and the CGI (oh boy) was something that made me laugh. 

But I gotta admit that the fight scenes are pretty good, the director made a good job making me feel the tension in the firefights, they felt real , the explosions are on point and the sound design (except for the free tracks and sounds) is excelent.

"When good intentions go bad.- The movie"

Not the best review- Catch a fire

   1. In general, what did you like and dislike about the film?

I really liked the film overall, specially the first half. It was a portrait of a man that was trying to not bother anyone and live a normal life. Patrick Chamusso, the protagonist, felt like a real person , he had the goal to live with his family (however cheating on his wife) , enjoyed his hobby that was teaching kids about soccer and doing his job in the oil refinery. I really liked that he had a turning point when his wife , Precious, was punished for nothing and he decided to go against the intelligence service.

In my opinion the big flaw of the movie is the second half. It felt like a "hollywood movie" altogether, something that wasn't meant to be or you don't expect with the first half. The second part is faster and full of action, while the first part felt more real. The fight scenes and the last part (the climax in the refinery) felt too staged.

  2.  Who was the character you like the most and the character you liked the least in the film? Why?

Patrick was the best character in the movie (well, he is the protagonist after all). He had a clear motive to go against the "system". You could sympathise with him before and after the his change of view (I mean, living a "normal" life and want the freedom of the people). He had to endure a lot to get to be the man that was by the end of the movie, a brave soldier that can risk everything to get the better for everyone.

On the other hand Nic Vos was the least character that i liked and it wasn't because of the acting, it was because of the way he was. The actor did such a great job making me hate him. How do I know that? I couldn't stand that he was trying to get Patrick. He was such a horrible man, but a good antagonist.

3. What was the role of Samora Machel, the FRELIMO, and revolutionary Mozambique in the struggle against the South African apartheid? Use examples from the film and the biography of Samora Machel

Samora Machel was the first president of Mozambique after forming the FRELIMO, that was the Front of Liberation of Mozambique. In this case the island was being ruled by Portuguese that were abusing the people and he led the people into a guerrilla that ended up liberating that zone. We can compare the movement of FRELIMO to the ANC that wanted the liberation of Africa . Fun thing is that the protagonist (Patrick) ends up in Mozambique and Angola training for the purpose of fighting for freedom.

Not the best review- Goodbye Bafana

1. In general, what did you like and dislike about the film?

>Goodbye Bafana is an "okay" movie, mediocre would be a better word to describe it. So the story is about Gregory, the warder of Mandela and his group. The premise itself sounds great on paper, however as an stand-alone film (I mean, fictional) it would have been something good, but in my opinion it feels somewhat forced trying to make the protagonist a "good man" and the main problem is that trying to be a good man doesn't make you one. Gregory doesn't do something for anyone in the entire film, he feels too passive , if there is a problem he won't fight against it and he feels like he is doing some difference. 

Indeed, Gregory changes through the whole movie, but there are no changes overall, it's just the story about someone that tries to befriend Mandela and live with that. The idea of being with Mandela is something that no one would want. Why? Because "He was a terrorist" and by the end Gregory gets the idea of what freedom should be.

I don't like the idea of Gregory feeling that he is doing something like "helping" Mandela but actually does nothing. I can't stand his character at all for the reason of just being nice. The screenplay and the actors are okay in my opinion except for him. The idea of showing the other side of Apartheid is good, but it needs to make a connection with the public.

2. Who was the character you liked the most and the character you liked the least in the film? Why?

>I really liked how Nelson Maldena was portraited. As I mentioned in the other review, it feels like the "second Nelson", the one calm. He looks like a strong man, someone that can overcomes anything and he is really cool about everything.

James would be my second pick, because he is the nicest guy in the movie, but that doesn't mean that he is perfect. The whole movie James is feeling that he is doing the right things but most of them are wrong or makes no difference. Yes, he is a "good father" and "husband" and "friend" , but no one is that perfect in my opinion.


I didn't like the chief at all, he seemed suspicious the whole film. I don't understand why just Gregory was able to work with Mandela, it feels like some excuse in my opinion to keep him or to make "some conflict" , I think that Gregory wouldn't be the only one to know Xhusa in the whole Island.

3. How do the versions of James Gregory, Nelson Mandela, and Winnie Mandela compare between  Goodbye Bafana and Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom?

>In Mandela's movie Gregory appears as a secondary character, and when he is on screen he doesn't do much , but the way he interacts with Nelson is alright, he treats him in a good way , enough to show some kind of affinity with him. In James movie he is a primary character , the focus of the movie is him and his family. I think that Gregory is shown as the best man that can ever be and maybe one of the closest friends to Mandela.

However, the reason of the movie to have Gregory as a character is Mandela. In this film Mandela is shown as the "second Mandela", the one that can get through every situation using just dialogue and I really liked that they are about the same in the two movies, it feels like with that they actually described someone as it is in real life.

We can't talk about Winnie as Nelson in this case. This movie doesn't do justice to who she was. Winnie was a brave woman in M:LWTF , enough to sacrifice her maternity because of her ideals of freedom and anarchism. In this movie Winnie is shown fragile, someone that can't do anything in her own , someone that needs Nelson and it's not mention in the movie at all, so as I said, what was shown about her it made me the idea of she being like that.

Not the best review- Mandela : Long walk to freedom

1. In general, what did you like and dislike about the film?

> The movie itself is great in my opinion. It might not be the best movie of all time, but it has a strong screenplay and the actors did such a good job in their perfomance that you can experience the whole story without thinking about anything else. What I liked about the film is that you can understand most of the context and learn about one of the most important men of South Africa's history, I gotta admit that I didn't know much about Mandela until I read about him in this class and watched the movie.

What I didn't like about the whole thing was that they could use the real footage of Nelson talking to the people through TV, It was a wasted opportunity. The last problem with the film was the sudden ending, It felt unexpected and wasn't a good conclusion.

2. In your own words, how would you compare the "various Mandelas;" the ones from the article and the one from the film?

>Well, the two Mandelas are very different one from another. One is a "troublemaker" and the other would be an "angel". The first one is the Mandela is the one that can do everything to get what he wants, even if that means that things are gonna get violent, that Mandela was revolutionary and aggressive man. I gotta admit that he appears at the beginning of the movie, until he gets caught. At that moment he changes to a better man, I think that he gets the time to think and understand that he can survive and convince the people that he can evolve as a person. That is the Mandela that gets shown on the Film, the one that says no to violence and tries his best to use the dialogue to get to everyone, that Mandela was a mature man.

I think that anyone can be the first one, everybody can use violence to try to change the world or their surroundings. Second Mandela was truly unique in this way, because few people could achieve as much as he did through non violent means, through that experience he also learned much self control and humility, further proving that he has evolved and improved as a person and a leader.

3. What was the role that Winnie Mandela played in the film? Think about the contrast between her and the other ANC members.

>Winnie was a problem by the end , it was a noble act of her to follow Nelson's ideals but I think that she got everything wrong about the way to do it. Yeah, she was fighting for what she believed in but It was influenced by the first Mandela, the reckless and destructive man that got caught. The contrast between her and the ANC is that the last group were capable of making dialogue to get what they want and even if that was the case Winnie wasn't someone proper to follow, her motivation was her anger and her resentment for the people that the whites made suffer.


4.- How do you compare the role of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress in the struggle against the apartheid and in the post-apartheid South Africa to the Concertación and their role in the struggle against Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship and in post-dictatorial Chile

>If we talk about what make them similar is that they wanted to restore human rights in the country. Mandela was a leader like Allende and instead of eliminate the people that doesn't think like the goverment they just put it in jail. The ANC and the Concertacion could achieve what they wanted at the end, and that was a some kind of freedom in the new democracy that was installed.

About post Apartheid and post dictadura the common thing is that the new goverments promised changes and make things right, i mean, make justice and change the legislation to be a fair and better place but they haven't been able to achieve that 'till now .