“We heard the bells: The Influenza of 1918” (2010) reviewed by the
Carl J. Kieck International Research Group:
Lead Writer & Principal Researcher: Carl J. Kieck:
(09-06-2020)
Whatever the prevailing conception was of the causes of serious diseases at that time, in 1918 there was but too little understanding anyway to deal effectively with the global influenza pandemic that has subsequently earned its infamy as the Spanish Flu, the Grip, ‘La Grippe’ or the Great Pandemic of 1918. Decidedly more lethal than the average seasonal flu, young adults with less resistance were, in that outbreak, more affected than older generations. The contagion spread all over the world, affecting every imaginable human settlement, from isolated Indian pueblos in the US Southwest, to large metropolitan areas, and beyond. Where mass gatherings were still allowed to take place, countless victims would soon become infected with the result that hospitals & funeral homes were overwhelmed, and makeshift facilities had to be erected to offer some form of rudimentary treatment or care.
Commissioned by the US Department of Health and Human Services during the time of the Obama presidency (released in 2010, more exactly), “We heard the bells …” is infused on the one hand with a cumbersome multi-cultural perspective, but on the other, it offers the positive educational documentary attribute of elucidating befuddling concepts such as that of “pandemic”. Only a few months ago, (a) how this had to be defined, (b) who had the right to do so & (c) when it actually pertained, occupied governments, media platforms & a certain global health organisation for a number of weeks (i.e the WHO). We are told that when a very new Influenza A virus emerges, populations are typically not immune to it. The result of not having been exposed to it before & thereby not having developed immunity, means that high numbers of people can become infected and, even worse, sick. The actual pandemic phase is entered when a large region is affected, as well as, on rare occasions, the entire world. The most prevalent scenarios in recent times have been when such viruses crossed over between species, affecting humans, with the most ubiquitous provenance(s) being, typically, among avians (birds), both wild & domesticated, and swine herds. Pets, such as cats & dogs, however, may also contribute pathogens that cause, eventually, pandemics. It is not unknown for pandemic-capable viruses to have emerged from populations of aquatic creatures, interestingly enough.
Compellingly - thereby informatively delineating something of his background & credentials - we encounter Dr Anthony (Stephen) Fauci, as a pandemic expert, already ensconced in his current capacity as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fauci provides further insight as to how viruses may adapt from one species to another. Subject to an ongoing process of mutation, through interaction with the environment, viruses develop the ability to jump between species. Often these different species act as hosts in the spread of the disease, with humans adopting that unenviable role for a time, since the 1918 pandemic, on at least three other occasions: the little known & seemingly half-forgotten pandemics of 1957 (-58: Asian Flu), 1968 (-69: Hong Kong Flu) & 2009 (-2010: Swine Flu). Thus, at least two significant cases manifesting during the twentieth century point to an ominously familiar Asian or Chinese context of origin.
Embedded within the predominantly forced multi-cultural approach of the documentary, is the riveting factual tale of how contemporary molecular pathologists, from the US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, managed to obtain an unexpectedly large amount of the virus implicated in the 1918 pandemic in order to be able to add to our store of knowledge about one of humanity’s oldest microscopic foes. Going all the way back to his days as a postgraduate student in the 1950s, Johan Hultin, originally from Sweden, who considered undertaking his PhD studies in the US, contemplated a doctoral project that would have depended on retrieving the Spanish Flu virus from its deceased victims.
As part of his preliminaries (i.e. preparation), this involved a field trip to the far-flung Brevig Mission in Alaska. Located somewhere northwest of Nome, this Inuit settlement, in miniature, formed part of one of the most chilling chapters in the still mostly unwritten history of the pandemic. Attested to by missionaries & the later generations emerging from the few survivors (five adults & three children, more precisely), almost complete lack of immunity would lead to total demographic devastation of entire villages in this region.
Hultin’s original trip to Alaska, given the technical challenges of the time, had not been a success, yet with his return in 1997 as part of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology research project, the pathologist was ultimately rewarded. Succeeding in retrieving a remarkably well preserved lung tissue sample from the remains of an Inuit woman, the scientists were able to ascertain that the virus responsible for the 1918 global pandemic was avian in origin & had managed to adapt in such a way as to be communicable to & between humans. The acute disease caused by this virus was very characteristic for it would proceed by destroying cells lining the lungs & bronchial tubes, allowing bacteria from the throat & nose regions to spread down, triggering pneumonia, helping to explain why it would have been lethal to extent that it was & causing an epic global death toll of at least 50 million (possibly as high as 100 million) over a period of about three years.
A final, somewhat expansive commentary deserves to be addressed to the already cited multi-cultural perspective of the documentary which is one of its main weaknesses. There are merits to the effort that has been clearly made to reflect on the pandemic experiences of a number of communities. Nonetheless, the impression that emerges doesn’t contribute to narrative coherence or overall understanding. Instead, the implication that certain communities had been more affected by the pandemic because of intentional marginalisation or even outright discrimination, doesn’t prevail nearly as much as the message that the causes for these challenges ought to be sought within the communities themselves. There is no better comparative & objective ‘check’ for this than that which is derived from the approach of the documentary itself.
The Inuits’ Brevig Mission had first been exposed to constructive outside influences through the arrival of Christian missionaries during the late 19th century, bringing the many benefits of advanced civilisation to the way of life of the erstwhile Arctic nomads. Although this isn’t highlighted by the framing narration of the documentary, throughout in fact (one of the many uncomfortable silences in multi-cultural discourses), it’s noticeable how the different cultural viewpoints, the authentic community voices themselves, reference the centrality of faith woven into the fabric of their lives during the pandemic. The introduction of faith, in short, had led to a form of social reorganisation which had ultimately contributed significantly to the chances of survival of many ‘peoples’ around the world.
Moreover, the successive scientific field trips to Brevig highlight, as pointed out above, that some of the social difficulties inherent to cultural habits have to do with forms of self-handicapping community organisation. In the case of the Inuit of that area, there is a Village Council or Council of Elders in place which extends from & acts upon the principles of a matrifocal or matriarchal society. Contrary therefore to the commonsense dictates of the best decision-making processes, one person, i.e. the eldest woman of the largest family, has a decisive effect on the making of decisions.
Credit must be attributed where it’s due, though, because in respect to both of Hultin’s field trips, ‘matriarchal’ approval for the exhumation process had been obtained successfully, probably based on the unspoken yet incontestable implicit existential arguments made by the successful survival strategies of sophisticated scientific civilisation. Crucially, the understanding of the benefits that vaccination for smallpox had brought to the long-term survivability of the settlement, must pertinently be adduced as a 'tangible' example of 'intangible', persuasive arguments.
Nonetheless, the compelling ethnographic footage incorporated into the documentary, in this regard, invites further commentary. We are shown what are ostensibly tribal dances in which the matriarchal figures referred to above, are taking the lead on behalf of their tribe, with their activities extended to chanting, in addition. Yet, very strikingly, the repetitive gestures & moves, even facial expressions, communicate the dangers of ‘sameness’ & imitation, denoting behaviours & resultant thought processes that are very unlikely to provide anything beyond the involuntary cooperation needed to maintain a society on just the right side of survivalism & to furthermore direct the cyclical processes of procreation.
To encapsulate, “We heard the bells …” has definite merit as an introductory filmic resource for courses on community health, pandemics & diseases, as well as counseling sessions at secondary or even tertiary level. Contributors define & explain basic terminology associated with pandemics in an informed & comprehensible manner. Conversely, the production is lacking in critical self-awareness & bears the imprint of a multi-cultural perspective which fails to make obvious connections or direct viewers’ attention to the benefits of both science & faith (the latter only dealt with obliquely) to successfully overcoming existential challenges.
Advanced or gifted groups of students could be encouraged to tease out = by taking the discussion to another level - how the prejudices & shortcomings of Cultural Marxism may become encoded in the cinematographic productions of certain historical periods, for instance, and how this may be tied to the presuppositions that unconsciously permeate the period of tenure of a given presidential administration.
In cultural & social studies courses, students could be asked, per example, to find reasons to explain why only women are asked to relate their experiences of the 1918 pandemic on behalf of their cities, towns, communities or families: (a) Is it a shortcoming of this particular documentary? Or, are men normally, in a broader societal perspective, also excluded from being the ‘main narrator’, fulfilling a secondary or ‘silenced’ role regarding family history? Who speaks for the family, and, do men also deserve to have a say? A similar process of questioning could then, by extension, also be applied to matrifocal and matriarchal forms of social organisation to determine if these have any role beyond pre-historic subsistence or survivalist existential settings involving a few dozen individuals.
References & Bibliography:
“We heard the bells: The Influenza of 1918” (2010)
Cinematographic Information:
Director & Writer: Lisa Laden
Narrator: S. Epatha Merkerson
Link to documentary:
Carl J. Kieck International Research Group:
Lead Writer & Principal Researcher:
Carl J. Kieck
Professional Website(s), Social Media & Contact:
CONTACT: https://carl-j-kieck-international-research.business.site/ etc. etc.
コメント