Born in Flames (1983)

This is a very radical political film. As a black lesbian feminist, I could relate to the premise of this film. The plot unfolds in a semi-documentary style, making this film all the more interesting. Set against the gritty backdrop NYC, the film has a distinctly apocalyptic feel to it. This movie harks back to the militant, left-wing revolutionary fervor, of the 60s and early 70s. Despite the changes in society resulting from feminism, gay rights, and the civil rights movement in the last 40 years, this movie shows that there's still much work to be done, to achieve real equality for all. It's not surprising to me that the radical political movement in the film, is led by a working-class black lesbian. Women who happen to be lesbian, blue-collar, and of color, are still the most oppressed people in our society.Jean Satterfield is superb as Adelaide Norris, the dedicated member of the Women's Army. Jean conveys the militant stance of Adelaide, in a very visceral way. The supporting cast of this film, was also compelling. Especially Honey as Honey, the feminist revolutionary radio DJ. The film was slow-moving at times, but packed an emotional punch.Rights of the oppressed in society, have been rolled-back by right-wing conservatives for the past 28 years. So, we could use a radical political strategy that addresses the rights of the oppressed again, like we did in the 60s and 70s. History has been known to repeat itself. In this day and age, a radical uprising by women in pursuit of equality, is needed more than ever. This movie could very well be a sign of things to come, in that regard. I recommend this film, to all who take women's rights seriously, and want to become more aware of women's oppression in society.

Agitational left-wing diatribe or fantasy about a mostly lesbian women's army confronting the compromised "in-name-only" socialist government of the United States (there is a sort of bubbling-under anarchist sentiment in here).Yeah, you know what, it's a little out there, just run with it.My attention kept drifting because I felt this obsessive need to get into the filmmaker's head. I get, I suppose, radical socialism and I get radical feminism. As a straight white...dude...I guess I have trouble understanding radical lesbianism. I couldn't figure out why, given the fairly ludicrous premise for this movie, a women's army such as this would be "mostly lesbian." Is it because the people who conceived of this film were lesbians and this was kind of a political fantasy of theirs, or was it a comment on radical feminism, that only lesbians (for reasons I don't understand but kind of want to - if this is indeed the case) would be militant enough to get it together and get down to business? Or was it that the feminist struggle of the time resembled this in some way? I am, quite obviously, not the audience for this movie, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it interesting. The politics here are inescapable and unavoidable - if you can't tolerate the Left's extended cinematic trips (and this is one long one), you're not going to make it through - there's not much else to glom on to. It is impossible to suspend disbelief (or was for me), especially considering this film is really a polemic thinly disguised as a fictional drama. And I don't mean that as criticism. It is what it is. This film is about ideas, and it doesn't equivocate.The movie does have a (genuine) punky, indie, underground feeling to it that might appeal to some who otherwise wouldn't be interested in something this ideological. The soundtrack is interesting and kind of weird. Not *quite* punk but not quite anything else either (which maybe makes it more punk, I don't know.) Oh - I disagree with other comments that this movie is somehow confused or unfocused. It's not. If anything, it is as subtle as a sledgehammer. I mean, I, for one, know *exactly* where the filmmakers stand. The plot seems to be fairly logical, if strangely paced.This film is low budget (and wears it on its shirtsleeve), rough around the edges, and frankly I think this movie would be a complete failure if made with a big budget - if for no other reason than a large budget would sabotage (through overproduction and glossiness) the undeniably radical position the film takes. Possibly the film's most compelling attribute it is that it is wholly uncompromised (for comparison see The Spook Who Sat By The Door - which is not as low budget, but is similar in its revolutionary fervor).In any case, this movie is not for everyone. The summer blockbuster crowd isn't likely to enjoy this, and I doubt those on the right side of the political spectrum are likely to make it through (though I can imagine some of them, maybe, rubbernecking in a voyeuristic way - "so this is how the other half lives, eh?").Oh, and it ends with the World Trade Center being bombed (well, the transmitter on top), and Eric Bogosian shows up and has exactly one line, and I guess that's worth seeing if you're a Bogosian fan (I am).Anyway -- recommended, with strong reservations. If you like double meat and cheese on your ideological pizza, you'll probably dig this, or at least find it worth your time.

Born in Flames is one of those films that people start out discussing with the word "Considering.""Considering the budget is so low, it's pretty interesting.""Considering it's so badly edited, it still has some good moments.""Considering the acting is so poor, its ideas are kind of compelling."NO.This is not a film that needs to apologize for anything about itself. It's a great film about revolution that gets more compelling each time you see it. Here's some stuff to notice.First, this movie could not succeed if it had a bigger budget. It's about trying to make change when you have almost nothing, and its own production values help keep the focus on what feels like a real struggle.Second, this movie is BRILLIANTLY edited, cutting across three or four different plot lines rapidly to encourage us to connect the dots, to try to figure out how the various characters and perspectives can be seen as a whole. Example: a montage consisting of female hands doing various tasks: filing papers, typing, putting a condom on an erect penis (!!!!!), rinsing dishes. No commentary on this string of images, but what a message this lack of commentary sends! If you've never thought of prostitution as labor, you will after seeing this film.Third, the bad acting works. Revolutions don't have perfect, adequate actors who are up to the task of fulfilling their roles. They have regular people who are struggling to play their part. Hollywood A-listers would have ruined this point.I'm not done re-watching Born in Flames, and I'm sure I'll see more as time goes by. For now, though, it's on my list of truly important SF films. See it, teach it, tell your friends.

I'm surprised that so many people like this film. I found it boring, weird and incoherent. I assume that the filmmaker's goal was to attract a female feminist audience. Important questions of womens rights are brought up for discussion. But the incoherence of the narrative and the low quality of the cinematography, sound and acting only makes it a pain to watch. So therefore I don't want to recommend it to anyone. I can understand that some people find this film interesting because they are interested in the questions that it deals with. Questions of equal rights for women and homosexuals are very important to talk about. They were hot issues back in 1983 and they are still important. But I think that many people mix up what is interesting politically and what is a good film. This is definitely not a good film.