Yoga Inc. (Director: John Philp, USA, 2006): A fascinating excursion into the world of “for-profit” enlightenment, Yoga Inc. suffers from having just too many good stories to tell.

First, there’s the explosion of yoga all over the Western world, with the resultant rise of businesses to capitalize on it. Philp speaks with yoga experts who decry the separation of yoga as a spiritual practice from yoga as simply a physical fitness technique. They claim that making yoga palatable to Western audiences in this way disrespects tradition and violates the very soul of yoga. When the film showed some of the flakier variations out there (including nude and “Christian yoga”), I found myself agreeing with them. With yoga’s soaring popularity has come the inevitable arrival of yoga franchises, which are now putting independent yoga studios out of business. And with every gym now offering some form of yoga classes, the fad may be reaching a breaking point. The film included a very funny interview with Barnaby Harris, who founded a store in New York City called Fuck Yoga. I’m not sure if it’s funny or just sad that some of the people who buy his t-shirts wear them to their yoga classes.

Secondly, we discover that there are tensions within the yoga movement itself. Bikram Choudhury, the man behind “Bikram” or hot yoga, is suing anyone who tries to use his methods or yoga poses without crediting him. He has copyrighted yoga poses that his critics maintain have existed for thousands of years, causing a huge rift in the yoga business community. This type of squabbling seems all the more sad when contrasted with some quotations from traditional yogis one that stressed that yoga is about peace, not power. When there’s money involved, that seems to be forgotten. It felt very much like the controversy over televangelists from a few years back. Focussing on the earning potential and forgetting the basis of the teaching seems very easy to do in our Western culture.

There’s even a third major story in Yoga Inc. Esak Garcia, one of Bikram Choudhury’s followers, is a participant in competitive yoga. Bikram claims that this tradition of yoga champions goes back “thousands of years” in India, though that seems dubious. The sight of yoga practitioners competing for trophies and medals seemed crazy enough, but there is a campaign led by Bikram to have yoga admitted as an Olympic sport. In this other major thread of the film, we follow Esak as he prepares for the yoga world championships. This type of competition seems to be strictly about the physical practice, with contestants trying to outpose each other or fold themselves into contortions. In a very American sense, this type of display is more about the surface than about the depth, about the attractive body rather than the beautiful soul.

The film was constantly engaging, but I just felt it needed more time to fully explore all the issues it dug up. This would work as a series, I think. On the other hand, Philp did a good job of using various documentary techniques, including the use of stock footage and image scans, though the low budget showed through at times with some low-resolution images and the odd cheesy effect.

Overall, this taught me quite a bit about something that is extremely trendy right now. And though I’m skeptical of the current “McYoga,” I do have respect for the traditional version, wherever that might exist. Though yoga isn’t my spiritual path, I believe that it should be treated as a spiritual path, and not as simply business, or fitness, or sport.

Here is the Q&A with director John Philp from after the screening:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Duration: 11:10

Yoga Inc. weblog

(7/10)

Tagged as: yoga

{ 1 comment }

Orange Revolution (Director: Steve York, USA, 2006): Coming straight from a screening of How It’s Done to this film already had me feeling wary of the folksy populism of Ukrainian presidential candidates Viktor Yuschenko and Viktor Yanukovych. The interesting thing about this film is how at the beginning it seemed like it was going to be a Yuschenko hagiography, broadcasting footage of early rallies from the presidential campaign of 2004. A smiling Yuschenko serves food and talks about raising pensions, and the crowds go wild. It becomes apparent later that this archival footage, not shot by the American filmmakers, is almost incidental. As is Yuschenko, despite his obvious charisma and the sympathy he receives after he is poisoned in an assassination attempt during the campaign.

The real story of the film is how a young population, hungry for change, defies a corrupt regime and brings down a powerful government. The Orange Revolution refers to the peaceful occupation of Kiev’s Independence Square for several weeks in November and December of 2004. Crowds approaching a million people camped out, singing and chanting, clad in orange scarves and hats, and waving orange banners, the colour of Yuschenko’s political party.

Almost unbelievably, the occupation, in response to a rigged election that declared Yanukovych the winner, succeeds in getting the electoral commission to set aside the vote. After parliament quickly passes some electoral reform laws, the election is re-held on December 26th, and Yuschenko prevails with more than 52% of the vote (to Yanukovych’s 44%). That all this happened in a few short weeks and without any bloodshed is almost miraculous.

The film does a good job of keeping us in the moment, with intertitles declaring each day of the vigil. But it seems almost overwhelmingly one-sided. There is a lot of input from journalists, but also from most of Yuschenko’s advisors, and the President himself. It would have been interesting to hear from the other side, who were simply painted as villains and left out. It was clear to most people in the West during the crisis that Yuschenko was backed by the U.S. and that Yanukovych had close ties to Russia. There were even rumours that much of the grassroots organization for the Orange Revolution was supported in some way by the U.S., either directly through the State Department or through NGOs like the National Democratic Institute. In a film made by an American director, not to address these questions seems like a significant omission.

As well, I think the film could have done a better job setting the stage as to why people were so willing to risk everything for change. What was life in Ukraine like before, and what is it like now? The point was made that in terms of press freedom, things are improving, but I wanted to know more about the environment from which this “people power” movement sprung.

I liked that the film ends with an update telling us that Yuschenko’s coalition disintegrated soon after the Orange Revolution’s success, and that Yanukovych was elected Prime Minister, thus ensuring the power struggle will continue. Democracy is messy, and because the film was so uplifting and focussed on the giddiness of achieving one goal, it needed to be brought back to earth a little bit.

And just to be cynical, why all the press attention to this disputed election and not the one closer to home in Mexico? In July 2006, socialist Andrés Manuel López Obrador disputed the presidential election results, in which he narrowly lost to conservative Felipe Calderón Hinojosa. Obrador’s supporters held similar rallies and challenged the results in court. It took two months for the results to be ratified, and the controversy has led to calls for electoral reform. And I haven’t even mentioned the U.S. elections of 2000 and 2004. Is it just me, or is this happening a little too often?

Official site for the film

(8/10)

Tagged as: politics, ukraine

{ 1 comment }

How It’s Done (Director: Marcel Lozinski, Poland, 2006): Piotr Tymochowicz is a Polish political consultant and this film, shot over four years, follows him as he molds a group of young hopefuls into political contenders. The task is interesting because not only do none of them have political experience, but most don’t have any strong political opinions at all, which suits Tymochowicz perfectly. You see, the whole thing comes across as a sort of Machiavellian reality television show, and his complete and utter cynicism and misanthropy are apparent every second he’s on screen. Which made me feel like I needed a shower when it was over. Over time, most of the hopefuls drop out, either due to inadequacy or discomfort with how they’re being manipulated, but by the end, young Dariusz is in position to be elected to Parliament, even though he’s betrayed his ideals so many times he doesn’t know where he stands. “We haven’t finalized my image,” he says evasively. What started with some public speaking lessons and political exercises that seemed like performance art pieces has brought him to the brink of success. Only he’s a hollow man.

Journalist Jacek Hugo-Bader is along as an observer and acts as the audience’s horrified proxy during the film. In an interview with Dariusz at the end of the film, he marvels, “You could become my president?” And it seems eerily possible.

Though the film makes some good points, it makes them often and the unpolished style combined with the length made the film flabby when it should have been sharper. I also didn’t like that it wasn’t until the end titles that we discovered that the film was shot over four years. The filmmaker’s decision not to share this information at the outset could lead the audience to think that this was a “crash course” in political indoctrination when in reality, many young people’s political opinions form and change often over the course of four years.

But if this film proves anything, it’s that the arrival of “political consultants” like Piotr Tymochowicz shows that democracy in all its messy glory has now firmly taken hold in Poland. And the film certainly was still fresh in my mind while watching my next film.

(6/10)

Tagged as: poland, politics

{ 1 comment }