Thursday, December 2, 2021

The Dojo's Top 10 Events of 2021 Encapsulated in Film

 




INTRODUCTION

            As another year ends, it is time for The Sociologist’s Dojo to once again rattle of the top ten sociological films of the year. However, because we are still in a pandemic, (which now has more Variants than a Marvel Character; Hello, Omicron!) and the  altered release schedules of films, coupled with the limited the number of films I saw in the theater due to COVID self-protection; I decided this year, to once again, give readers a list of 10 events of 2021 and the films that encapsulate them. This is obviously not an exhaustive list of events, nor even the ones that are “The Most Sociological, but hopefully represent some of the noteworthy happenings of 2021 and the films that epitomize their essence; either directly or tangentially. With each event I will give a brief explanation of the event, followed by how the film(s) relate to each incident. This list is obviously limited by personal bias, the films I have seen, and my own specialties in Sociology.

            Violence, death, manufactured moral panic(s) Infrastructure wins (sort of), billionaires in space, a Texas abortion law that is right out of a Atwood novel, the end of a high profile conservatorship, and a small little insurrection that nearly transformed our fragile republic into a dictatorship; 2021 has been just as wild and uncertain as its older brother. Below is a curated list of films that, when watched together, gives one a sense of living through 2021, whether we want to relive it, or not.    Enjoy!

 

10)   Rittenhouse and Arbery Cases:

Triple Feature: 

Whose Streets (2017),  



Candyman (2021)

On Nov 19th Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of killing two people and injuring a third during a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.  The trial and decision were criticized for bias toward the defendant. From not being able to call the deceased victims, to Rittenhouse himself being able to hand pick jurors from a tumbler, all of procedural aspects of the trial seemed to be in Rittenhouse’s favor. Yet, while as some legal scholars have pointed out that everything that happened in the case was technically legal, any racial scholar worth their salt will point out the glairing prejudicial legal procedures that repeatedly favor white defendants. Additionally, even outside of the technical legality of this decision, the systemic allowance of an underaged person to be radicalized by a social media call to arms, gain access to an assault rifle, carry it across state lines to “defend” property that is not his own, nor was asked to protect by the owners, should be illegal…full stop.

  The defendants in the Ahmaud Arbrey murder, on the other hand, were convicted only after many barriers to their guilty verdict were circumvented. First, there was a reluctance to prosecute the men involved until the video of the murder was released to the media, sparking national attention. It should be noted that it was the high-profile nature of this case that led to the conviction of Aubrey’s killers, as several other cases with the same or similar circumstances have historically led to acquittal. 

The Rittenhouse acquittal, and the systemic barriers in the Aubrey case, point to the succinct message of  Naomi Zack (2015) in her book White Privilege Black Rights; that these disparities are not about white privilege, it is about the denial of black rights. All defendants should be treated with the respect and caution to convict that Rittenhouse was afforded, and the fact that so many are not, is a denial of their rights. 

            To illustrate these two cases, a triple feature is necessary. Whose Streets (2017), a documentary about the rise of police brutality protests after the death of Michael Brown. This helps to understand the context of the Rittenhouse Case, and the backdrop of which the events unfolded.  American History X, (1998) is included to acknowledge the ties Rittenhouse, the McMichaels and Bryan have with white supremacy ideology and groups.  Nia Decosta’s Candyman (2021) is a great example of the recontextualization of black pain, leading to the manifestation of a vengeful spirit. In the film, several real-life victims of racist violence become a part of the Candyman “hive” to help exact retribution on those that wronged them. I would imagine, in the Candyman universe, Aubery is now a member of the horde.

 

9) Simone Biles backlash at the Olympics:

 Bamboozled (2000)   


            The fundamental issue regarding the backlash that gymnastic superstar Simone Biles received for dropping out of a majority of her events in the 2021 Olympics to focus on mental and physical health has to do with race and the perceived public ownership of Black women’s bodies. This is the psychological fallout of the practice of 400+ years of slavery that still frames Black people as being in the service of white people. According to Rhoden (2006), regardless of how much these individual athletes get paid, if their primary job is to perform for the entertainment of white people, which are disproportionally in positions of authority and a majority of their fanbase, the black athletes are perpetuating the relationships that were cultivated during slavery.

            The messaging of “shut up and perform” is illustrated in Spike Lee’s controversial satire, Bamboozled (2000) which, while leaning into problematic racist stereotypes, presents the performative aspects of black culture for a white audience in stark detail, outside of the glorified mechanism of professional sports.

 

8) Manufactured Moral Panic-Part 1 Vaccines

Network (1976)

 

In the past year, governments and pharmaceutical companies have come together to produce a vaccine for Sars-Cov-2. Yet, regardless of abundant vaccine stocks, the Coronavirus is still with us. Part of this is through the spread of vaccine misinformation by major networks like Fox News, whose empty-headed, mouth breathing pundits tout fear and panic through information that is both vague and misleading. Often, they express hesitancy and outrage over mask and vaccine mandates, even when their own company has stricter rules than the ones outlined by the federal government. This is minimizing the likelihood of heard immunity and has allowed Covid-19 to mutate repeatedly into more virulent and resistant strains.

The 1976 film Network satirizes the way in which the way media companies can manufacture consent (or in this case discontent) to their point of view for profit. The Oscar winning speech given by Ned Beatty towards the end of the film is easily applicable today.

 

7) Manufactured Moral Panic- Part 2 Critical Race Theory

Fahrenheit 451 

                      (1966)

 

                      (2018)

 

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a legal scholarship put forth by Kimberlee Crenshaw, Cornell West and others that identifies how the systemic aspects of racism are built into our social institutions providing built in benefits and barriers for individuals based upon race. Initially, CRT was established to understand legal disparities in arrest, sentencing severity and other aspects of the Criminal Justice System. This mechanism has since been applied to other social institutions pointing to the disparities in experience between people who are white and people of color in our society.  This form of scholarship is not being taught in elementary schools, high schools, or barely in undergraduate college courses. However, this became the focus of right-wing moral panic when their news outlets fueled this false narrative for their own political purposes for the 2022 election. Instead, what these people are outraged about beyond their own attempt at acquiring more political power, is the shift in presenting American history in more accurate ways, outside of the flag waving nationalism common in the past. Thus, opponents to CRT: Firstly, don’t know what it is, and secondly, do not want to reckon with a more precise accounting of history outside of the socialized propaganda meant to pacify the public.

This panic has become such a raging fire that late in 2021, Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin won on a platform of banning CRT in schools. This has accelerated to actual members of a Pennsylvania school board desiring  to ban and burn any book with “offensive” content.          As I said, when I heard about this story: “Time to go back to Bradbury.” So, feel free to choose either the 1966 or 2018 version. Both will get the point across, and remind you of world we are about two steps away from living in.

 

6) Brittany Spears' Conservatorship Ends

Double Feature: 

Teen Spirit (2018) 


The Neon Demon (2016)


Bonus: Crossroads (2002) (because…Obviously)


The perception of celebrity in our culture often obfuscates the reality celebrities are living in.  The media and the entertainment industry, along with fan culture, has ideas about what they thought Brittany Spears life was like… and everyone was wrong.  Brought to the media’s attention this year through the hashtag #FreeBrittany, the public learned that Britany has been under a conservatorship by her father for most of her career. That conservatorship which is usually reserved for individuals without the capacity to care for themselves, has confined Britany for decades. 

The Conservatorship officially ended on Nov 10th of this year,  but it is how we as a public respond to this, and whether or not we commodify her again.  The commodification of celebrity culture, and the dangers that such an industry on the performer, is interestingly depicted in the Elle Fanning helmed Teen Spirit, and Nicolas Winding Refin satirical psychological horror film The Neon Demon.  Readers must watch the films in the order I have provided as the former gives a sense of Brittany’s origins, while the latter captures what we did to Brittany when she was consumed by popular culture.

 

5) The ‘Build Back Better’ Bill Fight:

2012 (2009)


            Every year that the Congressional Budget Office releases the numbers for the budget each fiscal yearn I have always cringed and the hundreds of billions of dollars going towards weapons manufacturing and distribution; while so much less was funneled to needed infrastructure repair. We tend to only make drastic changes to infrastructure after a crisis (Minnesota Bridge collapse circa 2010), and historically, infrastructure was always considered a back burner issue.  Yet, once Biden narrowly defeated Trump in 2020, there was some hope with a Democratic congress and a Democratic executive that we could begin the repairing of infrastructure in Biden’s first year in office. Then the fuckery began. First, Biden attempted to pass a combined 6 Trillion dollar package full of very popular social service spending programs like free community college and paid family leave. Unfortunately, this was deemed “too socialist” and both were gutted in the negotiation process; whittling down the spending package to a poultry 1.2 Trillion. Then, to please some energy lobbyist Senators Krysten Sinema and Joe Manchin stalled the bill for several weeks to gain and flex political clout with lobbyists.

            There is no feature length film about infrastructure inspection or infrastructure repair because, as John Oliver points out in a 2015 segment on Infrastructure, there is nothing abut infrastructure that is interesting or sexy. Yet, Hollywood does have a lot of disaster films, and the one thing that disaster films love to do, is to destroy infrastructure. I picked the 2009 film 2012 because it features a spectacularly irrational sequence of infrastructure destruction where the highway overpass crumbles which sets off a sequence of events that lead to buildings collapsing around a small single engine plane and limousine trying to escape.

 

4) US Pulls out of Afghanistan:

Triple Feature: 

Syriana (2005) 

Three Kings (1999)

 The Stoning of Soraya M (2009)

 

In late August 2021, the last plane left Afghanistan officially ending US military involvement for the last 20 years. The troop removal was no handled well, as many people were killed trying to get to the airport or trampled trying to get on to planes. This chaos and confusion is analogous to the ending of the first Gulf War in the 1990’s depicted in the David O Russell film Three Kings. Additionally, the US government acknowledged a drone striking that took place (which they first reported was a confirmed terrorist strike, was later changed, revealing that the strike was upon a family of innocent civilians (with several children))against a vehicle going to the airport to provide people with water.  A dramatization of a drone strike was a part of the 2009 film Syriana, complete with the confusion and uncertainty that comes with it. Additionally, because the US left in such a haphazard way, a lot of the progress, especially for women and girls in the country since the US Military took over. Now, with the Taliban again in control, there is an expected social regression and an erosion of the rights women have gained over the last two decades.  With that fear in mind, I chose the 2009 drama The Stoning of Soraya M as a reminder that the vicious attack that is in the end of that film, could make a comeback in the region. 

 

3) Billionaires…in…Space!

Elysium (2013) 


During the Summer months of 2021, three billionaires were in a race with each other to see who could be the first and go the furthest into “Space”. I use “space” in quotes here because when we colloquially use the word “space” we typically mean outer space beyond the earth’s atmosphere. This did not happen, not one of three billionaires (Musk, Branson, or Bezos) went to outer space. Instead, they all had varying degrees and times of weightlessness through a sub orbital flight; and unfortunately, they all came back.

Upon their return, astronauts that have been to space have come back with a greater sense of humanism.  Seeing the earth this way gave them an epiphany about the importance of environmentalism and reducing human conflicts. It put into perspective for them that we have but one world, and we better preserve it. People who were widely expecting the earth to give emotional catharsis to these sentient flesh sacks of money were sadly mistaken. First, Jeff Bezos tone deafly thanking his Amazon employees, many of them under sweatshop like conditions with a history of union busting, for making his space flight possible. Then, realizing the media expected him to have the aforementioned epiphany, Bezos made a thinly veiled speech on the commercialization of space and use it to get rid of trash and pollution.  

 This is the result of the defunding of the space program over the last 20 years, leaving space to now be commercialized by rich white dudes with a god complex. This is perfectly illustrated by Neill Blomkamp’s 2013 film Elysium that depicts earth as an overpopulated polluted trash planet in which the rich live on a space station in the earth’s orbit with the very best medical technology in the universe.

 

2) Texas Abortion Law:

Double Feature: 

Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always (2020)

 Unpregnant (2020) 


In 2021, Texas circumvented Roe vs Wade and brought challenge to this “super precedent” that was ignored by The Supreme Court. The Texas state law allows for individuals to bring civil cases against anyone helping a woman obtain an abortion, regardless of cases of rape or incest. Suddenly, everyone from the abortion doctor to the lift driver that brought her to the clinic could be sued by Texas civilians (not even in the same county) for $10,000 plus court fees.  In the words of Justice Sotomayor, this has allowed all Texans to become bounty hunters.

As of this writing, oral arguments have begun in the Mississippi Supreme Court case that could further erode the protections women have altogether, and at first glance, it is not looking good. Therefore, I wanted to put on this list a pair of films that speak to the Abortion Process and the power of women supporting other women through such a difficult decision. The first, Eliza Hittman’s Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always is a drama about Autumn and her cousin, Skylar, traveling from Pennsylvania to New York for Autumn to get the procedure. The story is poignant with sobering pragmatism. The Second film, Unpregnant, while also dealing with the same subject matter, is a road movie friendship comedy. Both films treat the actual procedure with care, grace, and dignity. Though it is tempered wit the fact that all four women across these two films could have been subject to prosecution if any of this happened in Texas and a handful of other states.   Remember, Abortion is a Human Right for anyone with a uterus.

 

1) Jan 6th Insurrection:

The Purge: Election Year (2016) 


I have already written exclusively about the January 6th insurrection earlier in the year, focusing on the impact of media consumption and whiteness on protestors; ultimately leading to the events that unfolded. As we approach the one-year anniversary of the event, we are seeing just how deep this plot goes. So far, the investigation has handed down indictment to several of the rioters, many of whom were in denial that they would even be prosecuted. The investigation has also implicated several members of congress who were involved in the planning of the coup attempt (even so far as giving guided tours to the insurrectionist just days before the event) no one has yet been arrested or removed from office.

The only cinematic choice to represent the events on Jan 6th is the third installment of The Purge franchise Election Year, primarily because the film ends with the Anti-Purge candidate winning the election, outlawing Purge Nights, and as a result, purge supporters staged violent uprisings across the country, protesting election results leading to the fourth film The Forever Purge (2021). While I still have some hope that we are several years away from this becoming an actual reality, the end of this film was a little too close for comfort.

  


CONCLUSION

Going into 2022, I am less optimistic about all aspects of society, and our ability to weather the storm.  From the approaching midterms to Covid’s consistent threats, to environmental depletion 2022 just like the last two years before might be yet another brick out of the wall of civilization. Therefore, it is important to remember human and civil rights for all people and understand your place in the world. We fight as hard as we can for as long as we can. If you need to personalize these collectivist ideas in order to support it, so be it. But here, in the last essay of 2021, I leave you with the parting words of The 12th Doctor: “laugh hard, run fast, be kind.”   See you all in 2022.  

 


REFERENCES

 

Roden, William C. 2006. Forty Million Dollar Slaves: The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of the Black Athlete  New York: Three Rivers Press

 

Zack, Naomi 2015. White Privilege and Black Rights: The Injustice of US Police Racial Profiling and Homicide New York: Rowman and Littlefield  


Saturday, November 6, 2021

The Sociology of Nicolas Cage: Simulacrum and Hyper Reality of a 'Massive Talent'


                Nicolas Cage is divisive. As both an actor and a public personality, he draws equal amounts of awe and ire. There are those that find him both fascinating and frustrating, profound, and perfunctory, badass and batshit.  Books, academic courses, video essays and the general public discourse have all, at one time or another, attempted to crack “The Cage.” In all of these earnest and thought provoking attempts, none have used the sociological perspectives and concepts to try and understand the cultural icon that Nicolas “Rage” Cage has become. By putting Cage, his acting style and influence in context, we can better understand some of the more complex, sociological post modernly pretentious theoretical explanations of society; as only an analysis of Nicolas Cage can.  The icon of Nicolas Cage is the conduit by which the Millsian quote: “Sociology sees the strange in the familiar and makes the familiar seem strange.”, is embodied.    

                  


HISTORICAL CONTEXT

            Basics

Born Nicolas Kim Coppola on January 7th 1964, Nicolas Cage assumed a stage name (that he got from Marvel Comics character Luke Cage) to distance himself from his famous family. He wanted to mitigate, but not completely erase[1], the nepotistic influence his last name would create. After being radicalized into acting by seeing James Dean in East of Eden, Cage decided to become an actor. 

Throughout his sorted and varied career, Cage has been rewarded and reviled, with scorn and scrutiny in both Hollywood and in the public discourse.  Amassing a whopping 114 film credits over a 40-year career (an average of nearly 3 a year), Nicolas Cage became known as the hardest working actor in Hollywood. This moniker was aptly applied in part because Nicolas Cage loves acting, and the fiscal repercussions the combination of copious spending and tax evasion create. This thespian proliferation and lower status nature of the “Direct to Video” market, obfuscates the quality of Cage’s performances. The thought and care that he places in his body language, to every syllable he utters (if he speaks at all) is carefully crafted, regardless of the film’s critical reception and profitability.

Roots of Performances

Early on in Cage’s career, he decided to reject the naturalist acting method that was cultivated by the Meisner and Stanislavski methods. These methods then became popularized by the “New Hollywood” of the 1970’s, becoming the default acting approach for most film and television today. The belief being that this naturalism allows for greater intimacy and relatability between the actors and the audience; that through this technique, the strength of the cinematic illusion can be solidified. Currently, naturalism has such a strangle hold on the industry, that people do not remember that there even were other styles of acting in other eras. The over-exaggerations of the 1930’s films, itself a consequence of the silent film era, are often ignored. In fact, the acceptance of the naturalism method also informs criticism; with awards going to those performances that best exude the realistic form, while at the same time condemning other acting styles of other eras as being “hammy”, or lacking in subtlety.  As Gibb (2015) points out Cage “embrac[es] the unnaturalness...what [he] finds interesting is contradiction. (8).

Nicolas Cage is a consummate preparer for all his roles. However, because he is a lover of all film, and has the willingness to experiment, many of the influences that he has for certain roles, and the explanation for the choices that he makes, are often lost on both the production crew and his fellow co-stars.  The being of Nicolas Cage’s acting is consistently aloof, until he starts to explain it. Nicolas Cage being greatly influenced by German expressionism, has explained his acting style in increasingly complicated and frustrating terms, such as “Nouveau Shamanism”, or “Western Kabuki”. Yet, when he gets to talk through his roles and the motivations behind his choices, he makes perfect sense.      

                 


 Gibb (2015) boiled Cage’s acting down into “the dual Cages”: one popcorn, one thoughtful. This is epitomized in his performance in Charlie Kauffman’s Adaptation, where he is playing twins. This, along with Cage’s mastery of movement allows for all of his roles to coexist without conflation. Yet, a simple binary understanding of Cage’s oeuvre does not do it justice. Given the thought and devotion to the most minute detail, Cage’s work needs to be understood as a spectrum between the poles of Gibb’s duality. For while I think the popcorn/ thoughtful duology is a fair assessment of Cage’s range. Let us not ignore or discredit all of the important stuff in-between; least we fail to learn the lessons of the failure of binary thinking in other social categories (race, gender, disability, class, sexuality).

 


SOCIAL ANALYSIS

            Foundational Cage (Berger and Luckmann)

            Before we can look at the Sociological study of acting and specifically the acting by Nicolas Cage, we need to set some foundational understanding before we move forward. For the purposes of this essay, that foundation comes in the form of Berger and Luckmann’s seminal work The Social Construction of Reality.

 Basic Tenets

 

1)      Everyday life is fluid, a negotiated achievement by individuals through social interactions

2)      Through interactions, individuals create social worlds (“universes”) by use of language and adherence to a socially agreed upon set of symbols; thereby developing solidarity among people.

3)      That social world constructs institutions that fulfills needs and provides a setting for the development of routines and behavioral patterns, which is often used to legitimate the social order, (The Criminal Justice System) knowledge production (Education), and pacify the populace (Media, Religion). 

4)      The individual is then alienated, repressed, and controlled when the constructed, is understood as natural. Usually completed through the generational social learning process. For example: digital natives vs digital immigrants, and generational social mobility for whites

5)      Through this internalization, the social worlds that we create constantly try to dominate us. (i.e. Frankenstein’s Monster) such as Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Militarization, Globalization, and social media. It often succeeds because by this point, we feel too small and insignificant to tackle such a problem. We believe it is beyond us.

 

 Berger and Luckmann’s point about the social construction of reality is what allows for Pop culture to be soft power. We often do not recognize, nor accept, where we pull knowledge from, especially when it is outside of either learned or experienced information. We do not want to admit that we shape our perspective of the world (thereby constructing our reality), around a passive acceptance of information without critical thought, regardless of the frequency in which we employ such behaviors. Through subtle socialization, internalization, and normalization, some information that may seem ridiculous, false, dangerous, or all of the above, suddenly becomes plausible. Whether that be because the information plays on biases that we already have, confirm previously held beliefs, or are from sources that we “trust”, this information proliferates in our mind. Compound this with the Tv watching rates rising over the last 15 years, while concurrently, reading for pleasure is declining, media shapes the way that we understand the world regardless of whether we want to admit it. Thus, shouldn’t we pay more attention to film and TV? After all, because of Naturalism/ Realism’s hold on acting, it blurs the line between fiction and non-fiction; allowing the storylines of the former, to affect our understanding of the social world (Bauman 2014).

    


            The Acting Cage (Goffman)

 

The Sociological understanding of acting can be easily understood through the work of Erving Goffman. As a symbolic interactionist, Goffman first developed a dramaturgical analysis to explain micro social interactionist behaviors.  This eventually culminated in his book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, where Goffman (1959) saw the theatre as a metaphor for social interactions:

  According to Goffman (1959), we all perform our “selves/ identities” for a particular audience. Aided by the Teamwork of our fellow actors, we all participate in impression performances both on a micro (individual teacher, student), and Macro (the group impression The college classroom) level.  For Goffman(1959), there are two types of impressions that exist. Impressions that are given, (This is what you openly present to people either verbally or through a sense of self definition) and Impressions that are given off (This is insight or information that someone gleans from observing your behavior).

Since impressions that are “Given off” are more powerful in determining our “Self”, Goffman (1959) says these are the impressions we attempt to control…in other words, we attempt to control how other people see us. We do this through products (clothing, cars, etc.) behaviors, languages, and speech patterns (slang, rate of speech). This process takes place in two different stages: The Front Stage and The Back Stage:   The front stage is where the performance is given and when the audience members for that performance lies.  This is the space for individual performances of a particular impression, and the space where teamwork is done to maintain a much larger impression.  The Back Stage is where the performance is dropped and worked on.

According to Goffman (1959), we all have multiple Statuses and Roles we need to play in our society. Each of these statuses and their corresponding roles have their own Frontstage performance and Backstage Maintenance. These different stages for different impressions overlap with one another. Which is why Goffman says that the world is divided into Front Stages and Back Stages. One performances Frontstage is another performance’s Backstage. Goffman (1959) also identifies what happens when these impressions inevitably fail. When impressions fail, we employ an elaborate Impression Management. This is when individuals use Protective and Defensive Practices to repair and improve a particular impression. Protective Practices are the type of practices that we employ to protect the entire impression. An example of this is Tact: Identifying you are not an audience member for the impression that you are witnessing.  This is done out of a sense of self preservation. We protect the entire impression so that when we find our self-slipping up, we hope that others will be as tactful. Defensive Practices are the type of practices that we employ to protect our own impression. This is done through lies, denial, distractive behavior, such as when your stumbling turns into mock dancing to hide your embarrassment.

Through all the management of impressions, types of identity, and their performance and maintenance, Goffman (1959) ingeniously grafted the idea of performance to daily interactions so completely, that this dramaturgical analysis has been used in gender studies, sexuality studies, and race scholarship for generations; causing the idea of performativity in social situations to become as undisputed as social constructionism. The normalization of Goffmanian ideas of social performance, parallels the rise and dominance of naturalist/realist acting in its profession. This then creates a self-fulfilling prophecy for the dominance of both Goffman’s and Naturalism’s perspectives; they validate each other. By using Dramatic terms as a framework, Goffman validates realism in acting as a legitimate form of getting at social truth, and Naturalism’s continued dominance maintains the relevance of Goffman’s ideas as a valid analysis.  Yet, Nicolas Cage, his acting style, and his persona cannot be understood through Goffman. For answers to the existence of “Cage Rage”, we must turn to Baudrillard.  

 


A Postmodern Cage (Baudrillard)

The historical validation of Sociology as a discipline has always carried with it a weakness; an inability to accept the messy tangled aspects of society as it happens organically. Part of the flaw in the understanding of society rooted in the Positivist/Structural Functionalism of the early thinkers of Comte and Durkheim, is the belief that everything needs to fit some preternatural paradigm of social organization relative to other ‘established’ disciplines to have meaning (Bauman 2014: 31).   Similarly, the naturalism/Realism acting style gives value in only performances that seemingly represent the genuineness of human emotions even though many of these performances are using unbroken complex dialogue, often without interruption in an overly melodramatic fashion which in no way represents actual conversations. Regardless, both Naturalism and Functionalist Sociology does not deal well with disorder outside of the system that it has created. This is one of the reasons why a lot of Functionalist can’t understand (or find validity in) postmodernism (and Baudrillard) and why the structure of Naturalism in Hollywood can’t get a handle on Nicolas Cage.    

Baudrillard (1994) challenges the very notion of what constitutes viable knowledge and an accessible reality.  While he concedes that constructionism is a social process that indeed is going on, defining, and using symbols to construct an understanding about the world, yet to him, the result is not an autonomous reality; but a delusional trap…a hyper reality.

 

For Baudrillard (1994), the search, and the attempt to produce knowledge is a fruitless endeavor; mainly because the barrier to total knowledge and true understanding is in the world of signs and symbols we create to try and understand it.  Therefore, our reality is only understood through the reproduction of, and interaction with, Simulations of the reality and knowledge that we seek. The more wrapped up we become the further away from reality we are.  This is the seduction of the Subject (Humans) by the Object (Non-living things)

 

These simulations take on four forms, each moving farther away from reality:

1)      The Faithful Copy- The perfect reflection of reality. We think it may even be real. Ex: TV dinners, Meat from a grocer.

2)      The Perverted Copy- The Simulation those masks and obscures reality- Ex: Plastic surgery, Professional athletes/Celebrity persona, Candy (Starbursts), HD TV, “Facing” in retail stores.

3)       The Pretense of Reality- The copy is formed, but there is no basis for reality Ex: TV shows, Movies and Video Games, high end Sex Dolls (simulation of the unobtainable), Las Vegas, The World Showcase (DisneyWorld)

4)      Pure Simulacrum- No relation to reality whatsoever Ex: Soft Drinks especially Mountain Dew, Coke and Pepsi Disneyland and other Theme parks.

 

Movies, and the predominance of the naturalistic acting style, as mentioned above, is “The Pretense of Reality” for Baudrillard. However, because pop culture is soft power, we often engage with movies and TV as if it was a faithful copy of reality (Baudrillard 1994). And while we do not think of them as completely real perse, the naturalism/realism acting style allows for the illusion to continue; and the social power of the cinema to remain intact.  Nicolas Cage moves beyond this into “Pure Simulacrum”. Whether it is roles at his most manic, contemplative, or everything in-between, a lot of what Nic Cage does, has no relation to the reality of the scene he is helping to create. Often, what he creates has a backstory and an interiority. This method allows that backstory to inform his performance, without overtaking it. 

 

Gibb (2015) points to this versatility:

 

“His career, like his life, is an ultimate work-in-progress. It’s performance mixed with performance art and with every film we see, every meme we share, we are part of it.”

 

Gibbs’ statement is a testament to the Simulacrum of Nicolas Cage. He is not just acting; he is a performance artist. Because it is often absent of reality, we as an audience have as much of a hand in crafting the performance as Cage. Rather than just be a spectator, we accept or reject a Cage performance through our participation as the audience, transforming it into something great or ghastly. Therefore, a Cage performance, like postmodernism, is subject to analysis and interpretation at different socio-historical intervals. Chronology contextualizes the Cage; his performances always benefiting from reexamination.     

 

“Every time critics want to write him off as a guy doing paycheck movies and bizarre performance choices, he does Joe [or Mandy or Pig] and suddenly you are like, ‘Well, that’s fascinating and now I have to reset again.’… Cage is a reminder that it’s okay to care, even if it makes you look ridiculous.” (Gibb 2015: 74-75). 


 

 

Critical of Cage

 

Nicolas Cage has played a wide range of roles in his varied career. From high school outcasts and lovesick bakers, to soldiers, thieves, and fear demons, his work encompasses a dedication that is a rarity considering the saturation of cynicism in the media (Gibb 2015). Regardless of his dedication to a role, Cage fans need to examine the roles he takes and ask why so many of them are misogynistic and commit violence against women. This is especially jarring given the context of his own arrest for domestic violence in 2011. While no charges were filed, this should cause any fan who is even remotely aware of The Rape Culture and the way power and trauma can be exercised, to raise an eyebrow in suspicion.

Additionally, an alarming number of Nic Cage performances from Vampire’s Kiss, Deadfall, Kiss of Death, 8MM, and The Wickerman, to lesser known direct to video films like Seeking Vengeance, Vengeance: a Love Story and Looking Glass have either at least a scene of rape and sexual violence, or rape, sexual violence, and violence against women are used as motivation for Nic Cage’s characters. Yet, because the Rape Culture permeates everything, the question is, is this disgusting trend a product of Cage’s choices (since he is not only an actor on a lot of these projects but also a producer) or is this the symptom of the overall misogyny in masculine Hollywood storytelling? Given the plethora of hostile images he has contributed to the culture through these roles, motivation seems like a moot point. The effect has already been made, and Cage, in his image and persona, have been consumed by society as something that, whether it represents the man himself, has been woven into the fabric of our culture; ironically making the image and persona of Nicolas Cage Baudrillard’s hologram hyperreality. The idea of Nicolas Cage has become more real than the actor himself.    

   

The Cultural Capital of Cage

            When artists generally make the statement that “art is subjective”, they mean to allow for the interpretation of art by their audience. This also causes the audience members to manufacture their own understanding of that which is produced. While this practice is understandable for art to reach a wider audience and minimize gatekeeping (that also has classist implications), the more that art becomes widespread, popular, and summarily internalized as meaningful parts of people’s identities, the more the public becomes the product’s gatekeepers (Spector 2019)[2].  Therefore, there is a danger in the art being accepted as something that either the creator didn’t intend, or the public’s sense of ownership impacts the cultural product’s authenticity.

Through the internet and social media, likeminded people have been able to find each other and share interests. This has given rise to a viscerally vocal public ownership of cultural products; especially if they have fandoms surrounding it. We have seen the denouncement of the Star Wars sequel trilogy and the erasure of the Expanded Universe, while at the same time, there is a broad acceptance of the “Filoni-verse”. This points to the fluidity of the cultural capital[3] of pop cultural products. Yet, while some may see this as a public form of quality control; essentially the customers (audience) telling the creators what they want, at the same time, the creators are not obligated to give the audience anything. While the latter is an unpopular opinion, there are several examples of creators feeling pressure to produce something, then what they end up producing, being lower in quality or ill received. Whether we are talking about Justice League, Star Wars, Game of Thrones, Indiana Jones, or Harry Potter, more isn’t always better, and a lot of time it’s not what people wanted.  While I still have a nagging question as to whether content creators should feel obligated to explain their art[4], maybe instead, we shouldn’t hold pieces of media at such high esteem that it’s change, or continuation negatively impacts our self-identity; and be comfortable with disappointment.

 

The image and persona of Nic Cage has been thoroughly consumed and regurgitated by the public into memes, resulting in the public perception of Nic Cage, and his abilities to be warped by the way this persona has been culturally consumed. He has been viewed, praised, and embraced by the public as an unhinged, violently extreme madman, that always produces a spectacle. There is an expectation that when you watch a Nicolas Cage film, you are just waiting for “the freak out” scene. The popularity of Cage being in his ability to be over the top, ultimately minimizes the recognition of the work, craft and talent Cage has for his artform. Thus, he is considered hackneyed. And because people have a difficult time separating the actor from the project, in addition to the cultural expectations of Cage, much of Nicolas Cage’s pained complex preparation and thoughtfulness for each role is ignored.    


A perfect example of this limitation is in the cultural expectation of Michael Sarnoski’s first feature, Pig. When word of this independent film hit the public, it was described in very lean terms: Cage plays a reclusive man whom, after an assault, goes looking for his stolen pig. Given the public perception of Cage being wild and irrationally violent, so many people believed that this film was going to be “Jon Wick with a pig”.[5] Instead, what they got was a meditative drama about loss, grief, and finding yourself.  Thankfully, based upon critical reviews, this was one time where the audience did not mind that their expectations were not met. Yet, how many people, believing they know what a Nicolas Cage film was, and assuming Nic Cage is doing a “Jon Wick”, completely avoided this film and its subtle brilliance? This is a problem with cultural consumption of an image or persona. It inevitably leads to expectations that pigeonhole a performer into what “works”; which unfortunately is often only what the public accepts. 

 

Cage Range

While a lot of Cage’s work gets exaggerated and overlooked, I wanted to provide a list of must watch Nicolas Cage Performances beyond the usual, and why they are remarkable:

                     Lord of War- Nic Cage and the Military Industrial Complex

                    Moonstruck- A Lovesick German Expressionist Cage

 

                              Raising Arizona- Nic Cage as Woody Woodpecker

 

                                      Matchstick Men- Cage taking on Neurological Disorders

 

                                             Leaving Las Vegas- Oscar Winning Cage

 

                                               Adaptation- Double dose, a Blended Cage

 

                                                 Joe- Internalized Cage

 

                                               The Family Man- Holiday Cage  

 

                                            Pig- Mournful Reflective Cage

 

                                            Mandy- The All-Around Best Cage

Also, Read the review

 


CONCLUSION

Nicolas Cage is Sui generis. He is the Simulacrum of Hollywood, always being informed by Hollywood while folding it in on itself. That uniqueness was built on various amounts of privilege he has from his family, his whiteness, his maleness, prestige, and wealth. Because of this, he has been able to reinvent himself and lean into the cultural consumption of his image; to the point that a book on Hollywood is coming out through the prism of his career, and his next project, as of this writing, The Incredible Weight of Massive Talent, is a meta textual, self-deprecating action comedy, where Nicolas Cage plays a version of himself, who is so strapped for cash, that he agrees to recreate a lot of his famous roles at a Drug Lord’s birthday party. Here, he seems to be leaning into his place in cinema culture while still benefiting from his identity and status. It is in the vein of this criticism, that I feel guilt over my fascination with Nicolas Cage. While he is compelling, there are so many roles that have aggressively misogynistic tones and attitudes with sparse roles for women. Still, for every The Humanity Bureau, and Between Worlds that we must stomach, we also may get gems like Mandy or Pig. Thus, I am willing to watch the first 10 minutes of any Nicolas Cage film. This is the gamble that I am willing to take with him. Because, even if he is not in a quality film (which he is often not), what he is doing in those films is still captivating. It is whether the rest of the film holds up around him which determines whether I stick with it or wait for the next one.   

REFERENCES

 

Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge New York: Anchor Books.

 

Baudrillard, Jean 1994. Simulacra and Simulation Michigan: University of Michigan Press

 

Bauman, Zygmunt 2014. What use is Sociology?  Cambridge: Polity Press

 

Gibb, Lindsay 2015. National Treasure. Nicolas Cage Ontario: ECW Press

 

Goffman, Erving 1959.  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.  New York: Anchor Books  

 

Spector, Josh 2019 “ You get the Audience You Deserve.” In For the Interested. Medium .com  Retrieved at https://medium.com/an-idea-for-you/you-get-the-audience-you-deserve-5598aeadbf56 Retrieved on 11/05/2021



[1] He had roles in Rumble Fish and Peggy Sue Got Married. Plus, name change or not, family lineage is still widely known in Hollywood (i.e. Carrie Fisher, Jamie Lee Curtis etc.) not to mention the Class, Race and Gender privilege he emits

[3] Cultural Capital is the value of knowledge skills and experiences within a particular social situation. This type of capital can be acquired individually (through personal experiences and independent reading/research) or collectively as a part of a larger structural mechanism of order and socialization (Schools). This is the value we place on “what people know.”

 

[4] Which is often necessary to understand a Nic Cage performance.

[5] However, one of the meta-textually interesting things about Pig is, that its premise is so sparse and direct that this could easily be transformed into a Action film with bombastic fights, an irrational villain with buckets of blood and gore.  But rather than make these easy choices, Sarnoski and Cage decide to defy the expectation and the genre. Instead of murdering people in a violent rage, Cage causes people to question their life choices through presenting them an existential crisis through quiet contemplation and inquiry