Saturday, September 23, 2017

The Anti-Social Sociologist




The title of this piece is a joke; a family joke at my expense. It is a joke I indulge because I have a self-deprecating sense of humor. Yet, the more it is uttered, referred to, and the more I think about it; the more it crystalizes my relationship with the discipline of Sociology and the long term effects Sociology has on its disciples with privilege.  
When Sociologists talk of social research they often do so with equal parts revelry and distain. Sociology being the study of societies and the various social forces that effect our lives means that data is everywhere (and it is glorious). Anything about human behavior has the potential to be turned into a research project. Yet, as a person engages with the discipline, and the veil of ignorance is lifted (What we call adopting the Sociological perspective), our joy at the vast volume of (potential) data is tempered by feelings of alienation, disappointment and disgust at the capacity of human cruelty. While this is may not be true for all Sociologists, it seems the most plausible for those of us that study inequality.
Critical Sociologists that study social justice issues often wade through the innumerable amounts of horror, suffering, and agony of the world in an attempt to make sense of it for other people (their readers, followers and students). Yet, as noble as this pursuit may seem, there is a danger to anyone studying discrimination or variations of polymorphic injustices heaped upon a group of people. The researcher could be perceived to be a misery tourist, vacationing in other people’s pain. While harsh, this is an especially astute criticism from anyone with an ounce of privilege. Those who study social injustice while having privilege within a privileged system have to openly admit, recognize and attempt to dismantle their copious amounts of privilege; if they are to avoid hypocrisy and retain any amount of credibility.
Credibility is a consistent issue in a culture of identity politics, where how you are perceived, in regards to your demographics (age race gender sexuality social class, disability etc.), often determines your authenticity to speak on such an issue.  This creates a problem that is twofold: One, Sociologists with white male privilege may feel alienated, or unqualified to talk about social justice issues that do not negatively affect them[1] and Two: White male Sociologists may be perceived as having greater credibility (by the public) because their judgement is not perceived to be “clouded” by demographic loyalties. Because of the color of a person’s skin, what they say is given more value. While this is a basic constructionist argument it cannot be overstated that the social categories that we often create are based in biology; thereby promoting archaic and morally bankrupt cultural norms like biological determinism.
Additionally, A person is seen to have greater legitimacy, and their augments taken more seriously, when it is assumed either A: They have no “stake” in the issue at hand because of their demographics and thus their argument is seen as more rational (therefore better). Or B: the experience afforded to you by your demographics provides the only manner of validity (AKA: Biological Determinism).This dichotomy is especially true if those individuals are in positions of power and authority. A white male perspective is seen as more acceptable because we are used to seeing them in positions of authority. Whereas the public often bristles at the claims made by people of color in authority even if the content between a white and nonwhite authority is the same. What is true, regardless of who is in authority, people are being effected by socially constructed categories that gain primacy through these pseudo-biological explanations.
The question then is how can we combat this? As a Sociologist in a privileged position (through whiteness, maleness, sexuality and social class) our first role to combat these legitimacy issues is to listen. Listen to the stories, experiences and analysis of other people from different demographics. Read their words and attempt to empathize with their struggle. However, it is important not to co-opt their struggle, or try to fix the struggle alone without them. That is not our place. We cannot be saviors fueled by guilt. That mentality still casts non-privileged people as helpless, and maintains a complicated narrative based on victimhood. We need to be their support for their self-liberation that they have strived towards and fought for generations. And it’s about time more of the privileged jump on the bandwagon, and the key to success is intersectionality.


I am an anti- social sociologist, I do not like to be around people; because my research and field of study results in me seeing the worst in them (people with power and privilege) and the system(s) they create. I have attempted to be a conduit for the work of the non-privileged/under privileged. I read their work and echo their voices in an attempt to use my privilege for good. In that effort, I attempt to sway the powerful and the privileged because maybe, just maybe, when they hear a heterosexual upper class white guy say the same thing that people of color, women, trans folk, gays and lesbians, and the poor have said for years; they might actually listen. Therefore, like a snake who eats its own tail, I use my privilege to tear down a system I benefit from; so one day that system, and my privilege, do not exist at all.    



[1] Many of White male Scholars go through some kind of existential crisis if they talk about social injustice in the classroom.

Saturday, July 22, 2017

The Films of Christopher Nolan: Dunkirk




The Tenth film in my comprehensive analysis of the films of Christopher Nolan is the WWII epic Dunkirk.  This film marks a number of “firsts” for the acclaimed auteur. It is the first war film of his career, it is his first semi-biographical period film (in that it is a real life event that happened) it is the first time working with stars like Mark Rylance, and Henry Styles, it is the first to have 75% of its run time shot in 70mm IMAX film, and it is the first (Non-Batman) film since his break out hit Memento to receive near flawless praise from critics. As of this writing, Dunkirk’s advanced ticket sales (Thursday evening screenings) have totaled 5.5 million dollars. However, unlike a lot of “seasonal blockbusters” Nolan films always seem to stick around in the theaters longer than the typical summer fanfare. The best example of this being Inception who’s box office run was analogous to “the little engine that could” and is still the largest grossing (Non-Batman) Nolan film to date.  Currently, Dunkirk is projected to take home a modest, but respectable 30-40 million dollars on opening weekend. It is my hope that with its positive buzz, and critical reception, the present estimate is a conservative one; because this film is amazing.


PLOT

            Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk recounts the evacuation of British and French soldiers off of the beaches of Dunkirk, France by requisitioned civilian vessels during the week of May 26th-June 4th 1940. The film, told in Triptych story structure, focuses on three major parts of that evacuation:
1. The Land: The Soldiers (among them Harry Styles and Kenneth Branagh) on the beach, getting boxed in by the German army, hoping against hope that they can find a way home.
2. The Sea: Appropriated civilian vessels (piloted by Mark Rylance and featuring Cillian Murphy) as they leave England to help rescue the soldier.
3. The Air: A group of three British airmen (Tom Hardy, Michael Caine and Jack Lowman) whom provide cover during the evacuation.


FILM ANALYSIS
  
            Overall Impressions

This film is the best film of the year, and I don’t see many other films surpassing it in the remaining months of 2017. The film is a breathless, suspenseful, white-knuckling caustic assault of sensory overload which, at a tight 107min, never lets you go. The film’s run time is notable due to the last four of Nolan’s Films (The Dark Knight, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, and Interstellar) clocking in between 145min to 179min. Here, Nolan seems to have gone back to the economy of storytelling that we haven’t seen from him since The Prestige. This is a welcomed return to the kind of pacing control and lean focus of his earlier films (such as the aforementioned Memento, or even Following).
Unlike those longer films, Dunkirk is not a story about the entire battle and complete evacuation, (as I am sure it would be if the runtime was any longer). It tells the middle of the story. It drops you in after the battle, and carries you through the evacuation; but the film ends before the evacuation is completely over. The film lives in the middle space between the beginning and the ending of a historical event. This allows Nolan the space he needs to “turn things up to eleven”. From the very first frame of soldiers clutching at fear mongering propaganda dropped by enemy war planes, the audience is gripped by an all-consuming tension that, while allowing a few brief moments of relief, they are never truly released from until the screen cuts to black at the end of the film.  It is then that the audience can exhale, only to then cheer at the films brilliance.  



The Structure
           
The first rule of being a “Nolanite” (A ravenous Christopher Nolan fan) is that a Christopher Nolan film will not have a linear story structure. Part of the overall fun of a Nolan film is to attempt to piece it together as Nolan lays the labyrinth before me. To this day, Nolan has never disappointed me in this regard, unlike some other directors
I was unaware of what a Triptych structure was until this film.  A technique typically used in painting (of murals), A triptych painting structure involves three separate panels that are at once independent and, when put together, part of a complete story. The three parts of the film are the aforementioned The Land (which Nolan calls “the mole”), The Sea, and The Air.  Nolan even uncharacteristically gives out subtle hints of how those pieces fit together. He provides a subheading time stamp as to how long each one of the vignettes lasted in film time, allowing the audience to easily follow along.
Nolan’s atypical transparency can be attributed to his very real chances of receiving an Academy Award. With the subject matter of WWII historically generating award gold, Nolan and his entire team, are strong contenders to sweep the 2018 Oscars. It isn’t that he is explicitly “dumbing down” his esoterically pretentious pedagogy (that I have come to love). It is that he seems to be leading the audience a little more than he has in the past; making sure that no audience member had any doubt about what happened, in what order, and to whom at the film’s end.  With a filmography that is rich in subtext and subversion, it is plausible that Nolan, desiring (much deserved) recognition from the Academy, made a choice to be less opaque in hopes that the added clarity may help his chances at winning the coveted award.
Outside of motivation, the structure is woven beautifully together; each part of the three piece structure fuels and builds off of the other two. Instead of linearly moving from one part of the story to the next, Nolan and editor Lee Smith begin each of the stories at the same time; cutting back and forth between them.  This consistent shift of character, perspective and action; Nolan uses to build tension to the point that eventually, with each cut to multiple people in peril, there is no respite for the audience. All that is left is the imbalance of constantly teetering on the edge of their seat. There is one sequence in particular where Nolan and Smith cut between the three different sequences, and in each sequence, one or more characters are in danger of drowning. So, even though we jump between sequences, there is this mounting dread that is slowly turning into doom in the hearts of the audience as we watch characters fight the sea, in various different capacities. The structure and the editing style hooks us deep into the individual moments in the film which propels us into the next; and with an exercise in minimalist dialogue, it is the craftsmanship of these intercut moments that progresses the story.


Cinematography, and Soundtrack

            A well-known serial collaborator, Christopher Nolan always has a spot open for the hand full of individuals with whom he works well, both behind and in front of the camera. Tom Hardy (who has worked with Nolan 3 times including Dunkirk) has been cited in an interview saying that “When Christopher Nolan asks you to be in a movie, you just say yes and find out what your part is later.” However, given Tom Hardy’s previous roles in Nolan’s films there is a pretty good chance, the next film will require the majority of his face be covered.  In addition to Hardy, Nolan has worked with Cillian Murphy 5 times (in various capacities) Christian Bale, 4 times and his grand “lucky charm” Sir Michael Caine (including the voice cameo in Dunkirk) 7 out of his last 10 films. 
            However, Dunkirk marks only the sophomore outing for Nolan and Director of Photography Hoyte Van Hoytema.  Starting on Interstellar, Hoytema took over for Wally Pfister while he was off making Transcendence. Together Hoytema and Nolan have continued to champion the medium of film. They attempt to push film beyond the boundaries of everyday filmmaking, into a premium crisp and vibrantly palpable experience, through the use and continued exploration of IMAX film and large print film stock.  Dunkirk is the latest fruit of that labor.
            Dunkirk is the first full length feature film to have 75% of the film shot with IMAX cameras. The IMAX camera that shoots in 15/70mm allows this biographical war epic to literally be larger than life (and many small buildings). The result is a completely immersive experience to the audience that is so enveloping that few have commented on the aspect ratio changes throughout the film as the other 25% of the film was shot on 35mm at a different aspect ratio. Nolan and Smith wove these changes so expertly in the middle of the story (many times within the same shot) that it was seamless.  But it was Nolan and Hoytema (who previously created a shoulder rig for the infamously heavy camera on Interstellar), who out did themselves on Dunkirk where they not only built an IMAX rig so that it would fit into a 1940 Supermarine Spitfire cockpit, but they also strapped an IMAX camera to the outside of one of those planes and then crashed it into the ocean. Ambition, thy name is Nolan.
            Very rarely in modern cinema, does a war epic get a PG-13 rating. Unlike its predecessors such as Saving Private Ryan, Apocalypse Now, or Platoon, Dunkirk itself is pretty bloodless. It trades the gore of war and crimson clad warfare, for wiry tension, trusting in the audience’s imagination to fill in the graphic gaps between each bullet, bomb, and the impossible decision of whether to drown or burn to death. It is that trade off, along with the effort of using IMAX cameras that pays off in spades. With it, Nolan and Hoytema are able to capture the terror exhaustion and determination on the faces of those in the scene. This personalizes their struggle and amplifies their terror in the hearts of the audience.
 An example of one such scene is the way Nolan and Hoytema personalize the capsizing of British Destroyer. In this particular unnerving IMAX sequence, the point of view is from the perspective of soldiers on the collapsing vessel.  Nolan and Hoytema use a camera technique called a “Dutch Tilt” (something that can be overused if not careful) to make it seem like a wall of water was engulfing the men where they stood.  A hauntingly well-crafted shot displaying a horror that is hard to shake once you leave the theater.
            Another of Nolan’s frequent collaborators over the last 6 films has been Hans Zimmer. Hans Zimmer is the genius composer that has brought us a literal cacophony of sound in his tenure working in film. Often times, a Zimmer score has been the bright spot in a lot of dim films. However it is his work with Christopher Nolan that Zimmer always seems to outdo himself. From the Brilliance of the Joker’s theme in The Dark Knight to Catwoman's and Bane’s theme in Rises, to the cosmic “docking sequence in Interstellar Zimmer titled “No Time for Caution”, Nolan makes Zimmer better. Conversely, the melodies that Zimmer creates for Nolan are just right to emphasize what is on screen, allowing the film to reach the desired emotional pitch. This is somewhat ironic considering that when Zimmer scores a Nolan film he is purposefully ignorant about the film’s plot.


            With Dunkirk, Zimmer uses a number of different practical and symphonic sounds that are consistently building up tension. Whether that be the use of the sound of Nolan’s own pocket watch during the sea rescue to conveying the bleakness and hopelessness that the soldiers on the beach listening as time literally ticked away; or the use of actual WWII plane engines in the theme for the aerial dog fights to get to exacerbate the intense feelings. Zimmer’s score preys on the audience, never really feeling the characters are out of danger even when it seems they are. The best track for Zimmer’s score is his theme for the air sequences called “Supermarine” as we follow Tom Hardy’s Ferrier giving cover to both boat and soldier.



CRITICISM

            Having only seen the film once, and also having little prior knowledge of the actual events that this film is based on, I cannot give a deeply rooted social critique of the actual plot and development of the story.  This may change in my subsequent viewings and when the film is released on Blu-ray. Yet, there seems to be a strong theme that is easily conveyed through a single viewing.


Theme: Survival is Heroic
            Dunkirk is a war film that glorifies the human struggle of war without glorifying the violence of war itself. Part of this is done though the cleaver editing and shot composition of this PG-13 film and their ability to not dwell on the violence. Yet, as I mentioned above, that is somehow more breathtaking, and at times more sinister on Nolan’s part, because the greatest horrors are the ones that we create in our own mind. We feel the human struggle for war because we see the struggle play out on the faces of the soldiers, mariners, and pilots on screen. We feel their struggle because we read it through their portrayal.
            A consistent criticism of Nolan is that he is a cold filmmaker, that he lacks the ability to give the audience a human connection, and character development that leads to feelings of compassion for those on screen. I have never felt that. I don’t believe that Nolan is a cold filmmaker, I believe that he thinks that empathy for characters needs to be predicated on personal audience investment. Nolan’s Dunkirk is indeed propelled by story and less by character, predominantly because the characters are (in my mind) purposefully left two dimensional so that they could retain their anonymity; thus becoming a blank canvas on which the audience can project themselves.
            In a film where the dialogue is minimal, each word uttered becomes rich with subtext and deeper meaning. There was one exchange between two characters that caught my attention. One of the evacuated soldiers is handed a blanket by a volunteer when they get back to England.
           
Volunteer: Thank you, well done.
            Soldier:     We didn’t do anything, we just survived.
            Volunteer: Sometimes that is enough.

In our current socio-political climate there seems to be a lack of consideration and kindness to the point that individuals are criticized for not producing anything, not being successful. This exchange caught my attention because it recognized that in a dire situation that seems hopeless, life is a prosperous outcome, in and of itself. The scene described above, and the train scene that follows, gives off a feeling of community that we seem to have lost since. It shows the celebration of a defeat. Not because we revel in defeat, but because even though the battle was a complete military disaster, 84% of the men trapped were able to make it home. The message, life is worth celebrating. That does not sound like a cold filmmaker at all.

            Nolan’s Protagonist Problem

            Another criticism that has been leveled against the film, and for Nolan’s entire career, is that the majority of his films tend to be populated by a lot of white cisgender men. This is a criticism that is sadly apt considering Nolan’s previous work; and while it is a criticism that some, including myself to be honest, have let slide and do not address it due to the overall quality of the work itself (with Dunkirk the excuse of it being a period piece is used); which should not let him off the hook.
Secondly, many of Nolan’s male protagonists tend to also have backstories that involve a dead female spouse or relative that motivates them into action. This is a constant problem in the majority of Nolan’s filmography (along with the very problematic fridging, or in some cases “water tanking” (ala The Prestige) of those female characters). It seems that he does not know how to write women or female characters in general. His best attempt at this, Selena Kyle in The Dark Knight Rises, was not even his first choice to be included in the film. He had to be convinced to add her in the film by his brother, Jonathan Nolan.
Finally, I would like to see Nolan take on this deficit by having a female writing partner, or at least someone that can look over his scripts to make sure there is both representation and development for women and people of color throughout his stories. It is obvious, that this is a blind spot in his writing ability (as it is for many white men). The crime is not having this problem, the crime is in not acknowledging it or trying to resolve it.  Christopher Nolan is a brilliant filmmaker in almost every way. This change, would make him perfect. I very much want that for him, and for his fellow fans.  



CONCLUSION

This is Nolan’s best work to date. While I may sound like a broken record, it is my pleasure to say it because Nolan keeps getting better as a filmmaker. He keeps pushing himself in both technique and technical brilliance that helps to challenge the way that movies are made, and improving the industry as a whole.  It seems that Nolan is hell bent on taking on every genre of film, and upon each success, causing its reinvention. I can’t wait to see what genre he tackles next. While there are many rumors of what Christopher Nolan will do next, it is sure to be a spectacular well-crafted journey that will be worth every film frame.   


AUTHOR’S NOTE

Film Formats

 While Dunkirk is out now in wide release, it is in a variety of digital and film formats. There is regular Digital Cinema Projection (DCP) 1:85:1 aspect ratio (which is a digital format you will find at any local Cineplex) IMAX Xenon projection at 1:9:1 aspect ratio, IMAX Digital and 4k laser projection is at 1:43:1 ( this is the closest digital format to film to date). On film, it is being shown in 35mm 2:45:1 aspect ratio, 70mm film 2:20:1 aspect ratio, and IMAX 70mm in 1:43:1 aspect ratio. In my opinion, the last in this list is by far the best presentation, with the clearest picture and the most encompassing detail. If you have both the ability, and the means to see the film in the IMAX 70mm film I recommend that you do so; at least for your first viewing experience. Regarding all subsequent viewings, IMAX 70mm is not required, but it would be better if you could be able to see it on film, rather than one of the digital projections. Seeing it on film was, as a cinephile, a pure delight. Being able to see the crispness of the image and have an internal smirk of watching the reel change added to my overall experience. This should be taken into consideration, if you decide to seek out an alternate presentation that is not the typical DCP.

Saturday, June 10, 2017

The Distilled and Sterilized Feminism of Wonder Woman



Spoilers Ahead!!!!

INTRODUCTION
Coming out of the Wonder Woman screening I was conflicted. I had opposing thoughts, as I tried to process my feelings about the film.  I felt let down by the film, that it promised one thing, and did not even deliver on that promise. Choosing, instead to give me a watered down version of what I had expected. However, I knew how much the success of Wonder Woman would mean for female lead superhero films in general. So, on some level, I wanted it to succeed, if only to have more female lead heroes on screen. Additionally, I was working with a handicap, I am a white Heterosexual Male, so I was unclear, at least at the outset, if I did not like the film because the film wasn’t for me. I was cautious because I did not want to hate on a film just for not being its target audience/demographic.  Therefore, I struggled with even writing this review because I did not want to come off as a “Mansplaining Asshole” (which I still might) given that many of the other negative reviews of the film (also written by men) have been peppered with thinly veiled sexism producing pieces of misogynistic crap. In an attempt to temper this feeling, I relied on a few negative reviews from a feminist perspective (one author I greatly respect) whom are in the obvious minority; I was also motivated by my wife’s unbridled hatred of this film to complete this review even if it is a dissenting opinion.   


A “REQUIRED” SUCCESS
With our current socio-political reality that has seen a small hand genital grabbing narcissistic man-baby become president, and his actions criminalizing being a woman; it seemed the success of Diana of Thymyscira’s first major film was in question. Would this be a continuation of most recent anti-female rhetoric and sexist political policies, or would it be a breath of fresh air? This was further complicated by the fact that the character of Wonder Woman, the literal poster child for second wave feminism, had to be incorporated into Zack Snyder’s sexist “Douche-Canoe” Universe. Yet, these red-flags, such as Zack Snyder’s involvement (he was given a story credit on this film that was also written by all men) were ignored due to the near dehydration felt by the lack of Wonder Woman content over the last 75 years. We are so thirsty for Wonder Woman content that we see the mediocre as extraordinary; as the saying goes, “Hunger is the best spice.” We are willing to feast on this second rate Wonder Woman because unlike her peers in the Trinity (Batman and Superman), her story has seen limited adaptations and expansions. Yet, as Wonder Woman rides on the cultural novelty of treating a woman as a person, it was the focal point of socio-cultural pressure that made the success of Wonder Woman inevitable or bust.
            From its inception (and many false starts, hang ups and various delays) the new Wonder Woman film was put upon by unfair pressure. Because we live in a patriarchal society that values men over women in a false egalitarian democratic meritocracy, the future of women in leading roles in a film genre dominated by men, was biasedly riding on the success of this one film. Whereas many films directed, written, and staring men have allowed to be sub-par to “god awful” in terms of quality with only marginal financial success in order to get a sequel. This is the quiniessential example of a gendered double standard. This is an industry (like other larger social institutions) that see men as complex and different, with different attitudes and tastes and women as a single solitary group and a “niche” market. Thus, by seeing all women the same way, and that formula of previous female lead superhero films having been less than successful, resulted in the stalled overall production of female led superhero films because they “failed” in the eyes of a male driven studio (EX: Electra, Catwoman etc.) thus setting back the development of such films for a decade or so.  Therefore, when Wonder Woman went into production it needed to be a success because if it wasn’t, as history has shown us, it would have been an excuse to, yet again, shelve any attempt to have women break the glass ceiling of successful superhero films.  With so much riding on it, all of a sudden, Wonder Woman became too big to fail and on that road to inevitable success the character becomes sanitized in her own story, manipulated into being a shell of herself (as she is written in the comics). 2017’s Wonder Woman’s Diana is a facsimile of feminism; a representation of mainstream “Marketplace feminism” used as a tool to sell a product rather than what she could be: A beacon of egalitarian female empowerment that challenges the very sadistic misogyny of our culture.



A WATERED DOWN HEROINE

            Forgive the cliché, but Wonder Woman and the character of Diana of Themyscira could have been the perfect heroine for our time. A strong, queer identified, feminist badass that is ruled by her compassion and love for all people. This is what I was hoping for as I sat in the theater and the lights dimmed. As the film began, I was instantly brought to tears as I gazed upon Themyscira and watched as a society that showcased (albeit briefly) women in all social and societal roles beyond any kind of gender stratified socialization. I was overcome with joy as I watched young Diana mimic fighting techniques and desired to be as powerful as her “sisters”. Yet, that joy was slowly eroded away as the story continued and I realized, to my grave disappointment that by story’s end it did not understand the character of Diana at all. At least the one I have come to know and love through the work of writers such as Gail Simone and Greg Rucka
            The most egregious of these errors is the film’s misinterpretation of Diana’s core motivation.. In the comics, each of DC’s holy trinity has a single driving force. Superman is driven by Truth (he is an honest, good moral person) Batman is motivated by Will (he will sacrifice and overcome any obstacle) Wonder Woman is motivated by Compassion, for everyone…especially her enemies.  One of the reasons the above quote (that introduces this section) is so salient is because as Diana fosters love and compassion in other people, it leaches out the very masculine desire for war and violence.
While the film flirts with the importance of Diana’s compassion though passing glances and flippant facial expressions by star Gal Gadot, this notion is completely undermined by films end when, being motivated by the love and loss of Steve Trevor, Diana declares (in a direct heavy handed way) that she is motivated by love and compassion and will not kill Dr. Poison. However, this declaration does not stop her from violently killing Ares that results in the ending of the war.  The overall message of this action is: That violence can be solved by violence: This is not only historically inaccurate, but it undermines the character of Wonder Woman herself, and her core motivation from the comics. Instead, this Wonder Woman expresses her emotional complexity through violence; a typically masculine trait.
In our society, women are often chastised for being aggressive and angry while being allowed to have more emotional flexibility than men, who conversely are socialized to embrace only the aggressive emotions of hate and anger. Therefore, men are often taught to filter all of their complex emotions of love, and fear through acts of violence. Thus, the core problem of Wonder Woman as a film is that it resolves itself through a masculine interpretation of Love and Compassion instead of a feminine one.
            What would have a more novel approach[1] was to have Diana use her love and compassion for people to motivate an end to the war through diplomacy.  The armistice that she would have brokered would have weakened Ares (who is fueled by war and discord) to the point where he could be subdued and locked away in Tartarus… because Wonder Woman only kills as a last resort, with great reservation and guilt. But I guess in a Zack Snyder Universe where both Batman and Superman are uncompassionate murderers, we shouldn’t be surprised that the Wonder Woman of this universe is less than ideal.  This is not the feminist Wonder Woman I wanted, it is the male interpretation of Wonder Woman, feminism through the male gaze, feigning progressiveness while reinforcing regressive ideals.


A Frustrating Facsimile

                In the comics, as in the film, Diana of Themyscira is depicted as a beautiful woman; said to be blessed with the beauty of Aphrodite herself. This beauty in the comics, which is also mirrored in the film, is consistent with the typical male gaze. A woman who is thin, conventionally attractive symmetry of face and depicted as constantly wearing make-up. Thus the film does its part, like so many film before it, to reinforce problematic beauty and body norms that have plagued women since forever.
            This is again another missed opportunity for the film to subvert convention. Wonder Woman on screen could have been a chance to increase the visibility of women with different body shapes and sizes; promoting their diversity and normalizing their existence. Given that Wonder Woman is an Amazon she could have been portrayed as a towering giant with a certain level of muscle definition. Unfortunately, the film coward away from such a prospect[2], and instead, doubled down on Diana’s adherence to western beauty standards. While I will concede that it is nice to see Wonder Woman depicted as a woman of color (Gal Gadot is from Israel); she is still depicted as a white woman (with white parents), when in the comics, she is of Greek heritage with Olive colored skin. While the film does not make Diana’s beauty a defining characteristic, it also seems to go out of its way to comment on Diana’s attractiveness and desirability to other men; in almost every scene that she is in. This reinforces the tired gender stereotype that girls learn early on: that their value is in their body. A stereotype that asserts that girls and women can be strong, and empowered, courageous and violent…as long as they maintain societal beauty standards and be sexual attractiveness to heterosexual men. This stereotype also warps the perception of a woman’s access to power. Girls and women are taught though such stereotypes that power is obtained through their bodies.  But that power, and to some extent their body, is not theirs. Their body is a mechanism, a form of currency women are trained to use to glean power from men; instead of having power themselves. While these specific messages aren’t directly found in Wonder Woman, the film’s unwillingness to challenge the status quo indirectly supports it.
 A perfect example of this capitulation is Diana’s Naiveté a product of her proverbial “fish out of water” story.  While some reviews incorrectly identify her ignorance for stupidity, the lack of understanding social cues and cultural mores does hamstrings Diana’s righteousness and outrage against the sexist Patriarchy that she should have dismantled in. every. scene. A typical response as to why this didn’t happen would be the origin story excuse. A producer might say “Oh, our Diana isn’t fully formed yet, she hasn’t “become Wonder Woman until the end of the film.”  Given your level of origin story fatigue is the litmus test on whether not this comment would incite violent rage or a mild annoyance. To me, as in the comics, Diana is a fully formed Wonder Woman when she leaves home. She just requires a brief adjustment period to get used to “man’s world” Yet in this film, and the 2009 animated film of the same name, Diana’s experiences change her, away from the feminist icon and closer to a woman that could blend in; which is code for a woman that is non-threaten to men and their fragile masculinity.  This is not what we need.
In fact, 2017’s Wonder Woman takes this even further by making Steve Trevor Diana’s motivational, mansplaining guru of the rest of “man’s world”.  He is the one that explains the evils of humanity and human nature (but don’t worry, #notallmen). Yet, in these scenes especially, she is there to react to him. His desires, and his mission are driving the story. His needs, and his accomplishments are important; she is just the secret weapon along for the ride.  Unlike his female counterparts in other films, Chris Pine’s Steve Trevor has his own completed story arc. Yes, his death is used as a form of motivation for the Titular heroine that her love and loss of Him propels her to greater insight at the end of the film. However, the important difference is that he is not violently “fridged” like so many women are whom are in the same position. Steve has a “glorious moment of masculine triumph” though violent self-sacrifice.   
            Another opportunity the film squandered was the possibility of a queer narrative. From the first pages of Wonder Woman’s origin stemming from an all-female island that comes from the Greek myth of the Amazon warriors of Lesbos (root of the word lesbian), the Wonder Woman story is steeped in queerness. Even with the fight and general acceptance of multifaceted queer identities today, especially among millennials, Hollywood still depicts Dina as being heterosexual; when nothing about her existence even remotely suggests that she would be strictly heterosexual; considering that she has already reached sexual maturity by the time she meets her first man. At the very least, I would have like to see her at least identify as bisexual or some other form of fluid sexual identity that is afforded by Diana’s backstory.  All we get is a line about the lack of importance of men to female sexual pleasure; which is played more for laughs and as an emasculating “mic drop” moment, than as a salient plot point or character beat.
Additionally, here again the film, failed to meet my expectation of possibly showing an intimate relationship between a man and a woman that did not rely on romance. They had every opportunity to have Steve and Diana love and care for one another without it ending in sex. Furthermore, the scene that sets up the implied sexual intercourse off screen between Steve and Diana did not have any inclusion of active sexual consent by either party.  She looks at him, and he steps inside her room and shuts the door. Considering the staggering statistics of female survivors of rape and sexual violence, and that Wonder Woman is an icon of Feminism, I expected at the very least a verbal “Yes” from each of them. Instead, all we got were looks and assumptions of implied consent that are more likely to continue the problematic practices of non-consent that leads to the reproduction of the Rape Culture.




That praise is not praise

            One of Many points of praise I have read in the plethora of glowing reviews for this film is the positive female representation in the film.  Yet, this is another instance where, what seems progressive on the surface to mainstream audiences, tumbles like a house of cards when up against any strict critical analysis. The only true moments of the film that have such equal and consistently positive representations of women is on Themyscira. There women are generals, politicians, artisans, laborers, warriors, and clerics. Seeing this in the opening scenes gave me visions of Charlotte Perkins Gillman’s Herland and it is truly wonderful. Yet, this representation all falls to pieces the minute they leave the island. Moreover, since the island scene are in the first 30-45min of a 2 hrs. and 21 minute film, that means that the majority of film takes place off the island…where there are only three named female characters Diana included. Given Wonder Woman being a feminist icon, the writers of this film could have easily added a lot more female characters throughout the rest of the film by doing a simple internet search on women in World War 1. They would have learned about the vast extent that women participated and even fought on the front lines during the war. Imagine a Wonder Woman film where she meets and fights alongside other women in the trenches. The simple possibility of that subplot is far better than the transparency of scenes like Diana stepping out into the DMZ of WW1. There is a lack of subtlety in both the set up and execution. Just after Steve Trevor says “No man’s land is where No man survives.” we see Wonder Woman stride across “the No man’s land” and incite victory. She was able to do it because she’s a woman. Get it? She is literally “No man”. (*eye roll).  While this was pretty heavy handed, we were blissfully spared the cringe worthy dialogue of “I am no man!!!”[3] (I.e. Return of the King). But as she steps out onto the battlefield that phrase is screaming in our heads. This scene is the perfect example of what this film encapsulates, a prepackaged, boiled down, mass market, faux feminism that does not challenge the patriarchal system and is non-threatening to heterosexual men.        


CONCLUSION

  Wonder Woman as advertising

This Wonder Woman drapes herself in the trappings of Feminism, but when it comes to the actual Feminist work she falls short.  Wonder Woman is an example of what Andi Zeisler calls “Marketplace Feminism” in her recent book We were Feminist Once. In the book she explains that in this new era of brand identity and identity politics where young people are told to “rebrand themselves”, or to “stay on brand” Feminism has just become another tool to sell products, and it has opened up a whole new market. Advertisers and corporations use feminist ideals and rhetoric to sell their products without any emphasis on feminist work or the constant struggle that the fight for gender equity requires. To them, feminism is something you can buy, achieved through your capitalistic purchasing power, not something that you actively have to work towards.  The difference between “marketplace feminism” and actual feminism is the work involved. It is easy to put on a t-shirt and watch a movie and call yourself a feminist, it is more difficult to work, sacrifice, circumvent and sometimes usurp authority in order to keep the revolution of gender equality ever moving forward.

Solidarity towards (potential) greatness

            However, the need for forward momentum of a movement is a complex issue that comes with compromise. It is easy for me to say, that real feminism is in the work, when much of the inspiration to be an activist is often found in examples of “Marketplace Feminism”. Millions of children and adults across the gendered spectrum are motivated into activism because of the empowerment that they feel from of a song, movie TV show or book. We can be surprised by the things that end up motivating us to do great things, to better ourselves, those around us, to help with our community, fight tranny and challenge the authority. As Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman rockets past 300 million worldwide in its second weekend of release,  its success needs to be praised and supported. Because even though this film is not perfect, and this representation of Wonder Woman is a hollow shell of what she could be; we are not sure how many girls and women she, and this film will inspire to greatness. And finally, the more merchandise the character sells creates corporate confidence in female lead stories; so that eventually there will be so much female lead pop culture that we won’t have to comment on it anymore; it will just be the norm.  And that would be a true “Wonder” to behold.




[1] And one that I was expecting due to this film’s hype and high praised reviews I read before going into my screening
[2] marginally giving women of different color and shape tertiary background status among the other Amazons

Thursday, March 2, 2017

The Road to 'LOGAN'







INTRODUCTION

Soon will be experiencing an important Pop Cultural moment. The end of Hugh Jackman’s iconic portrayal of James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine, in the soon to be released Logan, which is already garnering rave reviews.  
To commemorate this seminal event, I will be recapping and analyzing the three films that I believe are essential primers for Logan, as well as provide a retrospective (both personally and socially) on Hugh Jackman’s time in the role. Then, in a separate post, I will write a review of Logan after I have seen it enough times to develop a coherent and cogent analysis of the film.



‘LOGAN’ ESSENTIAL VIEWING

Hugh Jackman has been playing the Character of James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine on screen for 17 years (more than that if you count the production of the original X-Men) through 7 films (as lead and star[1]) and two additional cameos. Aside from Logan which is shaping up to be the ultimate and most moving performance Jackman has given as the character, there are three other films in Jackman’s history as Wolverine that, if revisited before the initial screening of Logan, will make the emotional gut punch of seeing Jackman as Wolverine for the last time resonate to the very emotional core of the audience and fans. Those three films are, for better or for worse, X-men Origins: Wolverine (2009), The Wolverine (2013) and X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014). Each of these films have their problems. In some cases, a lot of problems. Yet, since these specific films are adaptations of seminal works in Logan’s character history, they are important. This creates a strong foundation for the final chapter in the Jackman/Wolverine Saga.




   Like Wolverine himself, X-Men Origins: Wolverine (the first in the solo Wolverine Trilogy) was a failed experiment.  Planned as the first in a series of Origin films (hence the title) that would feature various X-men characters (at the time of development there were similar films planned involving Xavier and Magneto), the film was never crafted with serious care[2] Jam packed with too many characters that devolve into shades of their comic counterparts[3]. This film had a bloated budget that was trying to tell too much story (we go from 1845-1979 for christ's sake). Part of the reason for this is that they were trying to thread a very fine needle. They were trying to create a suitable story to explain how James Howlett became Logan: The Wolverine from the first trilogy, setting up a film franchise (with the Origins line) and adapt two seminal comic books while providing some amount of fan service.  The result is that the film falls into plot holes and tired clichés ending with the film collapsing under its own immense weight. [4]Regardless of the many flaws of this film, there are a few saving graces that make the film have enjoyable moments.  It is these silver linings that are also the lynch pin for enjoying Logan
The two best things about X-Men Origins: Wolverine are the characters of Logan and Creed played by Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber.  It is their character’s relationship onscreen and the actor’s friendship offscreen, that contributes to the chemistry between the two of them which anchors the film. Their relationship outlined in the opening sequence (which is the best part of the film) creates the strong parallel between the two characters that exists in the comics. The slow drift apart over the years as Logan[5] becomes disturbed and weary of war and killing, while Victor revels in it.
 One of the major changes that they made for this film that I actually agree with is making Logan and Creed half brothers. This adds to the dramatic tension and character development for both of them. It see this as even an improvement on Wolverine’s Origin in the Comics. Throughout that entire graphic novel, once the character of James Howlett was revealed to be the man we would call Logan, the other character named Dog (who was a red herring for Logan through the first part of the book) I assumed would turn out to be Creed by the end of the story. I was sadly disappointed.
It is my hope that this antagonistic brotherly relationship, left open ended at the conclusion of Origins, resurfaces and is resolved in Logan. My hope clings to a Cinemablend article in which Liev Schreiber expressed interest in reprising his role as Creed after hearing they were going to loosely adapt the Old Man Logan  storyline from the comics, and internet rumblings of a secret villain fight at the end of the new film.  Add to this the reality that both the star and director of Logan have worked with Schreiber multiple times and both have strong friendships with him. Plus, wouldn’t it just be an amazing emotional conclusion if Old Man Logan and X-23 take on Sabertooth to cap off this version of the characters? It seems too poetic to pass up[6]



 Modeled after the famed and much beloved Wolverine title by Frank Miller and Chris Claremont. 2013’s The Wolverine makes good on Jackman and 20th century Fox’s promise to tell “the Japan story”. Like all of the other films in the X-men Universe established and (mostly) built by Brian Singer, they both too a lot of liberties with the story, as well as make some odd choices on what to include and what to omit.  Some of the changes work (like making Yukio a sidekick and Logan’s Bodyguard) other changes did not (the entire climax with the Silver Samurai).
            Mangold’s first foray into the superhero genre is met with welcome acclaim, breathing new life into a character’s solo career that was nearly snuffed out in the previous installment. Positioning Logan in the film as a Ronin (masterless Samurai), Mangold and Jackman reveal layers of the character that had only been hinted at up until this point and something that fans truly wanted to see. The trick that Mangold pulls to make Logan a deeper character is to hinder his healing factor for most of the film.  This coupled with a world weary performance by Jackman whom turns hopeful and ready to fight by the end. It is the shot in the arm that both the character and the Franchise needed going into their big cross over event Days of Future Past
            I have talked about The Wolverine previously on this blog. The film is utterly fantastic even with the telegraphed reveal at the end and its flawed climax.  What makes this film essential viewing for Logan is the creative team behind it, particularly James Mangold.  Given what he accomplished with his freshman outing, in a film franchise that has become as increasingly complicated and convoluted as its comic book counterpart, is a miracle.  Listening to interviews Mangold has given about the learning curve he had on The Wolverine inspires me to believe that his sophomore outing is going to be something special. 
Additionally, the two films seem to be a Gemini. The Wolverine is a film about James gaining the will to fight again, to become the weapon and the force for good that we see in Days of Future Past. Logan feels world weary in a way that inherently different way, beaten down, not by over guilt of the death of the woman he loved, but the toll life takes baring the hard decisions and their consequences on broad but tired shoulders. This parallel of storytelling is most visible in the two films companionate theme(s). The Wolverine is very much a Samurai (Jedigeki) picture, whereas Logan is a western; two genres that were built on and influenced each other. The best example of this is the work of Akira Kurosawa. He was influenced by the work of John Ford (particularly The Searchers) that inspired him to create Samurai classics like Hidden Fortress, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, and Seven Samurai. In the years since, Yojimbo and Seven Samurai have been remade as westerns; most Famously is the Seven Samurai remake The Magnificent Seven, and its remake of the same name. Let us hope these two films go down in history with similar acclaim.




X-Men: Days of Future Past (DOFP) is the best X-Men film to date. Not only did it successfully adapt a short, but impactful storyline from the comics that fans have been clamouring for ever sense they got a taste of it back in the 1990’s, but it also acted as its own continuity machine. This film connected the previous X-men Trilogy featuring  Patrick Stewart and Ian MacKellan with the “First Class” Trilogy featuring James Mcavoy and Michael Fassbender essentially making this film a world building crossover in the vein of an Avengers film[7] Any negativity I can hurl at this film is just a simple nitpick about under used or undervalued characters.
Even though DOFP is the first X-men film in the franchise that actually feels like its comic book counterpart, it is essential viewing for Logan in the way that it furthers the character development of James Howlett and Charles Xavier.  This film allows for an interesting reversal of roles. A despondent and broken Xavier has to be motivated to hope by his most difficult student.  It is this relationship, particularly by the end of the film, that is stronger and given more weight.  It is Wolverine that pays back his mentor in a very specific way thus forging their relationship as father and Son. A relationship that is the bedrock foundation for Logan as a film, positioning the two as an ailing father being taken care of by his dutiful, albeit grumpy and acerbic son.  It is this connection that looks to be the emotional core of Logan  and one that I am sure will bring me to tears.





THE LEGANCY OF HUGH JACKMAN’S WOLVERINE

    
Personal

 I first learned rumors of an X-Men film in the Spring issue of Cinemascape Magazine in 1997. The magazine had a film development section titled “Development Hell” and the proposed X-men film was often among its ranks. Being weaned on the excellent X-Men cartoon show in the early 90’s, my friend and I fan casted the film going off of the X-Men cartoon roster. We unfortunately selected a lot of “known”, B list or action star actors in many of the roles.  I am sorry to report that we chose Michael Ironside for Wolverine. However, we correctly selected Sir Patrick Stewart as Professor X. In all fairness I think it was because of our exposure to Star Trek and that he was the only prominent bald actor that our young minds could think of. We had also fan casted him for Mr. Freeze in Joel Schumacher’s Batman and Robin based on Batman: The Animated Series episode “Heart of Ice.” Thankfully we were wrong.
            I kept up with the production of the film. I remember the casting of Dougray Scott in the role and then he had to drop out due to scheduling conflicts. However, I remember the day I heard about Hugh Jackman’s casting. I walked into my Senior-level high school science class in 1999 and my friend told me “They cast Wolverine in the X-men film.” “Who is it?” I replied anxiously. Just then he seemed a little crestfallen “An unknown actor from Australia.” He showed me the picture in a magazine that outlined the characters and the respective actors playing them. I just shrugged my shoulders. “ He better do a good job.” I was always a little bit hesitant given what the X-men meant to me as an adolescent with a disability. Little did I know that almost 18 years later that Hugh Jackman would make his Legacy through the character, and that character become richer for it.

            Social

            Though some people might disagree[8], but the current superhero genre owes its existence to X-Men (2000). The immense positive reaction to the film and the box office (making a near 300 mil off of a 75mil budget) is what set the tone for the Sam Raimi Spiderman franchise, the X-Men Universe, Hellboy, Spawn, the resurgence of Batman with The Dark Knight Trilogy and the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe. Hugh Jackman’s popularity as Wolverine started it all. And in a world/genre where people get recast or replaced, Hugh Jackman has  remained a constant. He has been the eye of the Superhero maelstrom over the better part of two decades. Very soon it will be time to say goodbye, to Hugh Jackman’s “O’l Knucklehead”…but not just yet. There is one last ride for Jackman’s James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine in Logan and I can’t wait. I can’t wait to see it, I can’t wait to own it. I. Just. Can’t. Wait.


CONCLUSION  

 Hugh Jackman is Wolverine. He will always be Wolverine…because he has earned it. There has never been, nor will there ever be, an actor with so much devotion to a character. 17 years, 9 films. You can keep your RDJ’s or your revolving door of Batman none of them hold a single adamantium claw to Hugh Jackman. In fact, Jackman’s Wolverine has been such a mainstay that anytime a comic book character is played by the same actor more than once, the number of their performances should be measured in “Jackmans” ( RDJ for instance, would have 6 “Jackmans”) Since his portrayal has spanned the character’s entire lifespan and major life events, Hugh Jackman has played the character to completion. I have always believed that something becomes special because it has an ending, because there is an end. The more something continues the more invaluable, less precious it becomes. So, if Logan truly the end, no one has earned his rest more than Hugh Jackman. He has paid his dues, and increased the principle. Now it is time to just live off the dividends.       



[1] I am including his portrayal in Logan in this number
[2] If you listen to the special features of X-men: Origins Wolverine: Jackman really wanted to do the “japan story” by Frank Millar. The studio told him that before he would be able to do that, he would have to make this film. So, it is unclear whether or not he had the creative control he seems to have with Logan. Given the quality of the film, I think not.
[3][3] Gambit and Everyone else in the Weapon X program not named Logan or Creed.
[4] Painting themselves into a corner, they had wolverine get shot with adamantium bullets exclusively to wipe his memory. COME’ON!
[5] Or as Creed calls him “Jimmy”
[6] And too good to be true…I guess time will tell…soon enough
[7] A concept that we will see obliterated with the ambitious Infinity War  which will combine the Avengers franchise characters and the Guardians of the Galaxy the result being the apex of the Marvel Cinematic Universe dubbed “MCU”
[8] I am looking at you, Blade (1998) fans