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

Friday, February 24, 2017

Trump, Propaganda and Linguistic Imperialism




INTRODUCTION

 To paraphrase the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis[1], the structure of language has embedded within it, a particular way of looking at the world. In short, the language that we learn shapes our understanding of the world, our rituals, our culture and customs.  In essence, it is our language that helps to shape our reality. It is also the main mechanism by which that reality is socially constructed.  Furthermore, it is the labeling effect that makes the whole notion of the constructivist argument relevant, even possible. Yet, in order to have any of this construction and organization of society, of culture, through language, it is necessary to have a clear understanding and acceptance of what that language means.  This understanding is broadly labeled a collective consciousness, or collective conscience.  This collective interpretation of the world is often the foundation on which there can be academic discourse, civil discussion and cordial disagreements. We are allowed to have a debate over complex critical issues because we’ve agreed that there are certain concrete truths, which act as a foundation for every social interaction, a baseline we all can fruitfully build upon one conversation at a time.  However with the rise of the Trump Administration and the existence and use of fake news, sponsored content and “Alternative Facts”[2] we have lost the collective conscience.  It was murdered in front of us during the campaign in 2016, and now Dead horse beater President Trump has mastered the doublespeak with such precision that it’s positively Orwellian. To unpack how we got to this space, we need to look at the media as a propaganda tool, whom are those who run it, and some examples of the overall fallout of the media’s duplicity. A fact that President Trump has exploited allowing for the myriad of unprecedented executive orders. The least of which is the Government agency gag order the administration enacted within the first 7 days[3]  


THE PROPAGANDA MODEL

As a definition, the Propaganda Model is an analysis of the media by Linguists Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman whom states that The media’s power[4] is in its ability to persuade. It is that manipulation, often rebranded from the common political adjective of charismatic when applied to candidates, that allows for, according to Chomsky, the “ filter[ing] out the news that is fit to print, marginal[izing] dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their message across to the public (Chomsky 1988)[5]

Propaganda Model: Five filters
1.      Size, Ownership and Profit Orientation- There are only 6 companies[6] that make up over 93% of all media in the United States. The top companies are Disney (Bob Iger), Viacom (Robert Backish), Comcast (Brian Roberts), Time Warner (Jeff Bewkes), News Corp (Rupert Murdock) 20th century Fox ( Jim Gianopulos),  Honorable Mentions: CBS (Leslie Moonvest (male)) Netflix (Reed Hastings) and Amazon (Jeff Bezos). These companies are run by white men, only seeing the world though that prism
2.      Advertising: License to do business- It is through advertising that many companies “Manufacture Desire” for their product in the minds of the populace. It is through advertising that we are sold the aforementioned large quantities of “nothing” and many of the objects and trinkets we by that we don’t need. Advertisers maintain high consumer demand through Consumeristic Philanthropy which inevitably leads to Commodification and Commodity Fetishism[7]
3.      Sourcing Mass Media News- Major media conglomerates have special access to news and the government. Thus they can literally shape the way that people understand what is happening in the world.  This is heightened to an absurd level in the way that a close relationship with the Government can mean the difference between legitimacy or illegitimacy.

An example of this is when The Trump Administration deciding which news organizations are more reputable than others: Decrying others (that do not side with the administration) as Fake News[8]  This lead to the coining of the term Alternative Facts[9]This is a practice known as “Gaslighting[10] which is very effective since it is coming from An Upper Class White Male (with all of the privilege that entails) who also happens to be The President. Another tactic is Dog Whistling[11] Which is a common tactic used against people of color.

4.      Flak and Enforces- This is the use of lawsuits and other bureaucratic means to silence unwanted or unpopular opinions in order to maintain social control of the populace. EX: Trump and the Muslim ban Supreme Court case, The gag order for scientific and other research based organizations, Sean Spicer limiting control of the media by sticking to talking points regardless of “facts”
5.      Anti-Communism/War on Terror This is a major social control mechanism. This is when ideological forces are deployed to support powerful investments based upon soci-cultural beliefs. This could be against Communism, Islam, and supporting Christianity (Chick-fila) and Capitalism (Fox News and Starbucks).
6.      *My Addition another filter that has cropped up in recent years is “sponsored content” otherwise known as Native Advertising[12]  This is stories or articles typically written on the internet that can masquerade as news content. Since a Majority of individuals get their news from online sources[13] or Social media, they are susceptible. Especially because recent reports show that millennials passively consume news through social media[14] not requiring any critical analysis. Ads and News become one in the same.

The result of the propaganda model is the manufacturing of consent[15] from the public. In the political context, this acquiescence manifests itself through voter choices. A clear technique of manufacturing consent is Fear Mongering.

Narrative Techniques of Fear Mongering[16]

1)      Repetition[17] “There is something going on.” “Eminent” “tremendous” “Systematic” and Handful[18]
2)      The Depictions of Isolated incidents as trends “They are bringing drugs, they are bringing crime.”[19]  Logical fallacy of a Hasty Generalization
3)      Misdirection[20] Trump used it when NOT condemning David Duke[21] Sean Spicer talking about the Immigration executive order[22]

Manufacturing Consent (Desire) is also a mechanism of the powerful, to control the non-powerful (This theme we will come back to) but this only happens after the people relinquish their power to those in higher status positions by voting or not voting.   

There are two ways that you get people to relinquish their power:
1)      Fear We are living in a tremendous culture of fear that puts us in a constant state of unrest that we will freely give up our civil liberties in order to feel safe again.
2)      Convenience If it means that we can have an easier time day to day. If our needs and desires are satiated faster than before, we are willing to give up our privacy, autonomy and agency. When people are lulled into a state of complacency by the shiny new things and forms of entertainment they have around them, this is a road to social and political apathy



STORIES VS. FACTS

The consent that is achieved through fear mongering tactics polarize people and make the issues not about “facts but about Emotional feelings”. This is compounded by the blurring of the line between factual news stories and editorials thanks to Sponsored content, Donald Trump gained and maintains support regardless of what he says, and no Amount of “facts” will stand in the way of that belief. This is an example of what Sociologist call constructionism

Social Constructionism contends that individuals within society are defining, and therefore creating, the world around them through social interactions as a type of “communal exchange” (Cheung 1997:2).  Therefore, our understanding about the world cannot take place without other people. It is a social process that produces knowledge.

Knowledge, therefore “is developed, transmitted and maintained in social situations” creating a distinct reality (Berger and Luckmann 1966:3) for particular individuals. 
The mantra that is often used to illustrate this in sociology is twofold:
1)      “What is real is real in its consequences” W.I. Thomas
2)      Something has meaning because we (in society) give it meaning  Herbert Blumer    

Media Role in Social Construction

            One mechanism by which we give things meaning is through the media. The media embraces its role as the arbiter of knowledge (what Sociologist call an Agent of socialization) when they are advertising something, they whole heartedly seek to change behavior and self-identity if it means the consumer buys their products. They will clearly link product consumption with emotional fulfillment, gender identity while giving us normalized imagery of Race social class, satisfaction, drive and desire. However, due to the normalization of social media and the rise of hyper subjectivity online (which blurs the line between opinion and evidence) when it comes to politics, many media outlets will give opposing viewpoints, regardless of their scientific or other evidential validity,[23] Or be oddly non-committal in their political analysis thereby passing the buck on the their viewers

What is unfortunate is that a politician who understands this social process (of knowledge production) well, can tap into the emotions of the populace, stoke their flames of fear and ride the tide of tyranny right into office.  Such a politician understands that with a lack of an agreement of what is considered true, belief can TRUMP facts. Yet, the most problematic, and dare I say “deplorable” use of language, is in the obliteration of a group of people and their culture.



LANGUAGE AS IMPERIALISM

According to Michel Foucault, language is a way to organize and is a source of thought (Gutting 2005)[24].  Yet, the type and way we use language produces a different form of knowledge and understanding.  But the very way we use language to produce and organize thought, also limits us; hindering a deeper understanding of the world due to the rules language shackles us with. Thus, the way we construct the world, ultimately leads to our misunderstanding of it.

The existence of any form of inequality is solidified by the absence of language to try and fix it, for more egalitarian language. The American English language’s form of categorization is based on highlighting differences. Because the American value of individualism is embedded in the language that we use.  Therefore, the words that we use to describe our world is based on vagaries of distinction, creating a language that is motivated by separation.  That separation also motivates identity formation, forcing us to define ourselves by what makes us unique, what makes us stand out…the inevitable result of which is a form of toxic competition that fuels the politics of “otherness” (alienation, segregation, discrimination)[25]. Essentially, the language that we use predisposes us to create a structural social system that is unequal.[26] This is then continued on when many people of color teach their child English, rather than their native tongue. This might seem practical given the way that English is accepted and spoken in the world, however this idea can also be reframed as problem. One that sees the learning of English as oppressive and supportive of an unequal racial social structure pacifying people of color through the adoption of white cultural words, words that are given…to oppress people of color rather than uplift them; usually through complacent acquiescence. Thus Language is used as a mechanism of imperialism cultural annihilation and the pacification of the public. There are the all too clear examples of spread English by Christian Missionaries in Non-white countries[27]. The British occupation of India and Australia[28] A practice that is often echoed in the drive for a national language in the United States[29]
 
We are now living in the Upside-Down
CONCLUSION
           
            The Power of the media and language cannot be overlooked, both in its role in the election of Donald Trump or the way he has used it to cast doubt on what objective truth and facts are. For example I do not know if President Trump is personally a racist ( Though there is certainly evidence for it[30]) What is clear though, is that he has been able to tap into the zeitgeist of blue collar white fear, structural racism and xenophobia that has bubbled up to the surface after the election of Barrack Obama.  Since White privilege is invisible to most white people. They believe that their experience, opportunities and access to resources are in line with everyone else, regardless of the truth. This is what is known as the normalization of whiteness (or White Hegemony). Thus, when social movements, the passing of laws and the election of the first “black” president not only makes their whiteness visible, but begins to strip away the privilege they didn’t believe that they had; it creates a backlash that Donald Trump is capitalizing on; which makes him, at the very least, an opportunist. Regardless of his motivations, Trump embodies America in the way that we are only forward thinking not taking the time to look at our past history of genocide, racism, and sexism, while still being racist and sexist through the emulsification of hate into a new subtler aberration; he is the manufactured mirror of our culture that is now clearly visible to all.



[4] Using the Weberian definition of power being “The ability to realize your will even when others resist
[7] the perception of the social relationships involved in production, not as relationships among people, but as economic relationships among the money and commodities exchanged in market trade.
[10] The manipulation of someone by Psychologically causing them to question their Sanity
[11] This is when those in authority use coded language to hide the intention or meaning behind the words that they say. “ urban” meaning people of color “Law and Order” meaning over prosecuting people who attack police, or higher deportation rules “American” meaning white people.
[15] Manufacturing Consent Chomsky Herman
[23] Which can tip their hand to their political leanings
[24] Foucault: A Very Short Introduction
[25] This is different than say other countries that have a more inclusive and communal Cultural heritage that shows up in their language ( Kanji, Mandarin, Russian)
[26] This idea is, in part, an application of Baudrillard’s understanding of meaning based upon difference,  to explain the persistence of systemic structural inequality