American women might be the focus, but much of what we see unfolding on screen in She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry , a documentary on the American women’s liberation movement between 1966 and 1971, rings a bell in the context of India’s reality as well, for women across the world, and not just in the U.S., have been demanding political, economic, and social equality over the years. The film may not be about India’s history or revolution but is nevertheless relatable and relevant to the country. After a whole year of commercial run, the director, Mary Dore, has been taking the film across the globe for independent screenings. It is scheduled to release in 22 languages on Netflix later this year. With Women’s Day round the corner, the award-winning filmmaker-activist speaks to Namrata Joshi in Mumbai. Excerpts:
How closely were you involved with the women’s movement that you show on screen?
I was in the women’s movement a little later than the women in our film. I was not one of the pioneers I show in the film; I was a follower. But it had a huge impact on me. I grew up in a matriarchy. But the women’s movement opened my eyes to several issues I hadn’t thought about before. It was a surprising and a challenging way of looking at the world.
Was the idea of making this film always at the back of your mind?
What annoyed me as a filmmaker was that I saw hundreds of good films on the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and I thought it was great, but what I couldn’t understand was why no one had done an epic film about the women’s movement. Why is this subject not considered interesting? I found out the hard way: as soon as I started to raise funds for it. I started work on it 20 years ago, writing the grand proposals. But even the most liberal foundations were dismissing it as ‘passé’, ‘who cares, it has been done before’. It was a long slog. It made it clear that women’s history is not held in high regard and is not seen as an important subject.
A lot of research has gone into the film.
I have tried to be as thorough as I could. I knew what it was going to be about. I had done some shooting and interviews in 2000 and made a trailer to open doors to funding. I got a producing partner, Nancy Kennedy. It was in 2010 that I got the first round of funding. It was not enough to make the film but I decided to commit myself to making it. I realised it would be easier to parlay for the next round of funding.
You have also got a lot of footage of the past. Where did you dig that out from?
All over the place. Archival work is not cheap. Looking for old footage in a dusty room is my idea of thrilling work. I found footage no one had seen before. I went to networks, disparate places like state libraries. Some of it was completely fortuitous.
How did you aim to represent the movement on screen? There were so many different issues involved — race, homosexuality…
The movement had been labelled very negatively for very long. There have been many great historical books to refer to for research. But I wanted to show how thrilling and diverse it was. There had always been a denigration of it and there was this stereotype of a feminist being some angry, ugly, man-hating creature. The movement had also been perceived as white, bourgeois and middle class. It was a mixture. Many of the women in it were the first in their family to go to college, from the working class. The women came from many movements. At least half of them were involved in the civil rights movement. They were not oblivious to race. It was also the time of emergence from civil rights to the black power motif. They were asserting their own agency. But black women were feeling torn. In their radical politics, women were a few steps behind and not given leadership roles (just like white women in mainstream politics) but they couldn’t just jump and say they wanted to be with the women’s movement. It was complicated.
You have also not shied away from showing the leadership crisis in the movement…
Women had been so used to being ignored and having their opinion less appreciated. So, then there were these naturally good speakers who got more visible in the rallies. Women who took those roles and did well in them… there was a resentment built against them. Part of the idealism of the movement was that all are equal so if one rose up a bit, there was problem. It arose from the idealistic idea of a collective rather than anything practical. One can partly understand it in the context of centuries of women not having any power. A lot of women got shot down by fellow feminists. It was extremely painful. There were splits around where it was going and I felt it was important to be honest about these issues. If I had shown that lesbians had been embraced totally by the movement, it would have been a distortion of the truth. It wasn’t just homophobia. The women in the movement had been humiliated so much that they felt genuinely terrified that the question of lesbian rights would further tear it down.
The people we identify with the women’s movement — Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer — are only there towards the fag end of the film.
It was deliberate. A movement is always built bottom-up. It’s not the charismatic leader or the celebrity who builds it but the ordinary people involved in it. They took the risk and first spoke in public. Gloria, who supports and likes the film, was one of the influential figures but not the first. Too many histories focus on the best known people; this film was not meant to be about that but the workers’ base.
How have things changed now when it comes to feminism?
The earlier generation didn’t have the Internet. It has become a good organising tool but can also isolate. You have to have a group, a face-to-face interaction on issues. Earlier, street demonstrations were the way to get attention from the press and, in turn, make other women curious. The lives of women have improved immensely.
How has the response to the film been in India?
I have had a real good audience; young men especially have been asking a lot of questions. I can see that there is a lot of awareness and an ability to see parallels with your own country like on the issue of violence against women.
namrata.joshi@thehindu.co.in
