Born in Flames

Plot synopsis:
The plot concerns two feminist groups in New York City, each voicing their concerns to the public by pirate radio. One group, led by an outspoken white lesbian, Isabel (Adele Bertei), operates "Radio Ragazza". The other group, led by a soft-spoken African-American, Honey (Honey), operates "Phoenix Radio." The local community is stimulated into action after a world-traveling political activist, Adelaide Norris (Jean Satterfield), is arrested upon arriving at a New York City airport, and suspiciously dies while in police custody. Also, there is a Women's Army led by Hilary Hurst (Hilary Hurst) and advised by Zella (Flo Kennedy) that initially both Honey and Isabel refuse to join. This group, along with Norris and the radio stations, are under investigation by a callous FBI agent (Ron Vawter). Their progress is tracked by three editors (Becky Johnston, Pat Murphy, Kathryn Bigelow) for a socialist newspaper, who go so far they get fired.
The story involves several different women coming from different perspectives and attempts to show several examples of how sexism plays out, and how it can be dealt with through direct action. A famous scene is one during which two men are attacking a woman on the street and dozens of women on bicycles with whistles come to chase the men away and comfort the woman. The women in the movie have different ideas about what can and should be done, but all know that it is up to them, because the government will not take care of it. The movie shows women organizing in meetings, doing radio shows, creating art, wheatpasting, putting a condom on a penis, wrapping raw chicken at a processing plant, etc. The film portrays a world rife with violence against women, high female unemployment, and government oppression. The women in the film start to come together to make a bigger impact, by means that some would call terrorism.
Ultimately, after both radio stations are suspiciously burned down, Honey and Isabel team up and broadcast "Phoenix Ragazza Radio" from stolen moving vans. They also join the Women's Army, which sends a group of terrorists to interrupt a broadcast of the President of the United States proposing that women be paid to do housework, followed by bombing the antenna on top of the World Trade Center to prevent additional such destructive messages from the mainstream.

Tags: cult, avant garde

Review:
Even almost 20 years after its release, "Born In Flames" retains its sense of urgency and immediacy.
This is due both to the energy of the performances, soundtrack and direction and to the fact that most of the women's demands in the film - including equality in the workplace, safety from harrasment and sexual crimes, and equal representation in government - still have not been met.One of the film's greatest achievements is its representation of the divisions and debates within feminism.
The film does not try to offer a single solution or plan of action as a definitive best way forward and so avoids tempting over-simplification of a complex set of issues.
"Born In Flames" doesn't have an answer, but it has many, many questions and many, many voices.
These voices and the regular delivery of discourse straight to camera and audience has regularly led to critical disapproval and claims that it is "overly polemical".
I don't find "Born in Flames" overly polemical.
I don't agree with many of the opinions and strategies given voice and action in the film, but I found the experience of being directly addressed by a female character on issues that are largely invisible in mainstream cinema energising and inspiring.
This film won't change the world, but it made me start writing for my fanzine again and get on the phone to my bandmates to get a practice organised.
Enough films, debate, writing, and noise, and we'll get somewhere..
An important movie for all women to see.
Not only have I had the luck to see this movie, I had the privilege of receiving it from "Honey" one of the lead actors.
This movie is so important as it brings to life the struggle of not only women who were active in the 70's, but that the issues they brought forth still continue.
If one thinks we have come a long way in overcoming gender discrimination, then take a fresh look at this film.
I particularly appreciate the feminist analysis that seems to be missing today from women's activism and politics.
Every activist ought to view and take heed of this movies message.
This film parallels much of the social climate women endure today.
It reminds one of the radical ideas that fired the women's movement and how they might be reignited in todays world.It is timeless, yet carries the rawness of movies made in the 70's.
I highly recommend this film..
Edgy film about radical feminist politics..
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.
The supporting cast of this film, was also compelling.
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.
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..
incoherent film about militant female terrorists.
I'm surprised that so many people like this film.
I assume that the filmmaker's goal was to attract a female feminist audience.
Important questions of womens rights are brought up for discussion.
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.
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..
There is so much to unpack about Born in Flames after a first viewing (much belated I must say, I feel regret this wasn't there or I didn't find it when I was younger), but the first thing that comes to mind about it is television and media.
Where do all of these "issues" - I put that word in quotes for almost ironic purposes, as worker's rights" equality for women, equality for *black women*, homosexuals and other women who have been made to become second class citizens as their quasi-original sin based on their gender and/or who they were born to in society - intersect and become amplified, or have the chance to?
Borden's use of TV as this dangerous, insidious medium, where the great damage is really/often by these men (and sometimes bourgeois white women) in their glasses and suits seeming to have authority when dismissing attitudes and just ideas of the other, is staggering.
Borden at first gives this the appearance of a documentary - Chris Hegedus and DA Pennebaker turn up in the credits, though the latter I think was a special thanks it shouldn't be underestimated his influence here - but it is not quite that.
Sure, that is blood flowing through this stylistically, but there are many scenes shot and meant to be scripted with actors as well.
Then you throw in archival footage of demonstrations and other things - actual marches, police beatings and rages against the system, from what appears to be the past ten years - and it takes on a shape that is all its own.
It's like if you had dropped Peter Watkins in the lower East side, and he hadn't been born Peter but, well, a woman, and one who understands her place is total shit in society.Is it messy as all get out?
Would I dare tell her where?
This has the energy of revolutionary cinema, and I dont mean that more polished but didactic kind one may have seen from Godard in the 60s, albeit that sense of ambition is there.
This has a big cast of characters, from the black section of the women's army to the (white, middle class seeming, including Kathryn Bigelow?!) journalists trying to meet the women halfway, to the agents hounding the women on their trail (these scenes carry the kind of authenticity that made me think of how the FBI also infiltrated and tried to put the kabosh on the Black Panthers, which was also full of women), and the women in the pirate radio stations giving fuel to the fire on the streets and so on.
Sprinkled in are vignettes showing right at street level women being oppressed economically and with their bodies.
Early on the first action taken by the womens group is to bicycle around to police attacks when no one else will.
At the same time everything is of the same piece which is Borden saying: there is already economic suffering for everyone, but if you don't come to our help, there cant be equality in a country - regardless of if this post "liberation" as this is meant to be set ten years after (I thought of Hunger Games, except Born in Flames would eat that dystopia for lunch) - whether it is construction workers or sex workers or a waitress or whomever.
Violence is not something preferable but, well, what else is there to do if you men wont stay by our sides in the fight against the corporations?One might say that this isn't as relevant anymore; the women's marches last and this year were full of men not only supportive but possibly empathetic to the struggle which is constant in an America that values wealth and whiteness and the MALEness and all that horseshit bag of chips (just look at the president).
With the exception of the last scene, which hasn't aged well for what will be obvious reasons to anyone who's been alive since this film came out, it actually is even more relevant than ever.
When a piece of science fiction satire about the falsehoods and depravity and decay of society is made it's about when it is written - 1984 is about the 1948 Orwell was in, Huxley in 1932 with Brave New World, many of Dick's works, Hunger Games too to a lessor extent - and Born in Flames is Borden looking at Americans in the time of that "New" America of Reagan saying "no, things aren't right, things are really worse despite the women's movement that did little, and if you don't see the class issue above all else then you'll never come to see through our eyes."In other words, any of the technical amateurism here (acting too, though theres more good and natural performing than not, especially from the black actors) is all not of concern when substantively this is one of the richest works of volcanic-hot, Pompeii-the-Earth satire that has existed from an American filmmaker..
These were underground lo-fi movies made primarily in New York in the late 70's / early 80's.
I'm not sure but I would think that Lizzie Borden's feature Born in Flames must surely qualify as one, as this is a wilfully challenging and direct bit of underground cinema which is a rallying cry to women generally.
In the near future, America is celebrating the tenth anniversary of a socialist revolution but despite this, many issues remain the same, such as racism, homophobia and sexism.
A militant group called the Women's Army have been formed, they take direct action to fight for women's rights.
Their leader is arrested for a minor offense and mysteriously dies in custody in prison, leading to further revolution.I'll come out and admit it straight away that I didn't fully enjoy this one.
Not on ideological grounds but merely because I did not find the film fully engaging due to its fragmented experimental presentation.
Having said that, I do respect what it was doing and it does have an unmistakable energy to it which I found interesting.
It's clearly low-budget as underground films always are but it definitely has ambition for sure.
The actors are all amateur but this does ensure the feel remains more radical and less watered down.
It focuses on feminist politics primarily and it does have to be said that many of the issues discussed still exist today so it does still have a relevance in terms of what it is saying.
I also enjoyed the punk soundtrack which had a sort of proto riot grrrl feel to it.
Amazing SF film.
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.
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.
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..
One very strange movie...
It was part of some local film festival.
And then she strung together all of the surviving strips and that was her film.
This movie is not forgettable, thought it is really, really strange.
Set in the near future, it centers around a young, black, lesbian blue collar activist who goes off to Libya, meets with some socialist sisters, comes back with her political conscience raised even higher, gets arrested on some spurious minor charge and dies mysteriously in jail.
Her death sparks a women's revolution that turns the city (don't recall if they named it) upside down.
There's a funky black woman DJ who narrates the action like a sports announcer as things heat up.
This film is really, really bizarre.
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.
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.
It is impossible to suspend disbelief (or was for me), especially considering this film is really a polemic thinly disguised as a fictional drama.
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.
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.
This movie or whatever you can call it, is bad.
There is only a cheap generic ten minute plot and then random scenes and "interviews" from some television network.
The whole plot of the movie is pointless, why is there a socialist revolution?
The whole idea of a revolution makes the women revoloution in this movie seems pointless and the government doesn't seem to be different overall than it is now.
Overall the "revolution" is pointless to this movie's overall goal.
When women are arguing with one another over starting up the women's army, a few women point out that change comes slowly and that the government was already set up to change things.
The Women's Army people just sort of wave this argument off without an answer.
The movie is too random and unclear for any point to come out clearly.
The militancy that shows up really has no real foundation if the society is Socialist.
The movie argues against problems of the current government.
The good things that come out of it are the problems that women faced in the before, like the rape scene.
It is a powerful scene and the only one in which the issue is clearly marked, but it just leads to male bashing not directed towards the rapists, but towards others.
As a movie it is an interesting look at Feminist movement, but is too dated to be taken seriously now.
If anything what I got out of this movie is that feminists are just jackasses, and there are women in the movie that I'd think would agree with me.