MisterWhiplash 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? You gotta be on television, dummy! 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. I think this, even more than the title song, is the glue and spine of how this all can stick together.I say stick since this is, really, experimental and punk rock cinema at its fiercest and dirtiest. 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? Could any bits be cut? Im sure if I saw it again id find a place or two. Would I dare tell her where? Not a chance. 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. And then, well, the guns become a necessary evil for them.Is there some wish fulfillment and flights of fantasy? I'm sure there are. 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. And Borden goes goes the extra provocative step of... 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.

sonya90028 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.

Quag7 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.

Guanvitei2 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. If the government was socialist every one would be paid regardless, just laying that one out there... 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.