INTRODUCTION David Fincher's Gone Girl is bloated, horribly paced shell of the mystery/thriller genre that sympathizes with the so called "plight" of the white heterosexual male. This is the worst film I have seen in 2014, and it is also the worst time I have had at the movies this year, leaving me both agitated and depressed. This film was so bad that I decided to write this review as a form of catharsis, instead of finishing my review of The Dark Knight Rises.
PLOT
Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) comes home to signs of a struggle and his wife (Rosamund Pike) missing. While Nick begins searching for his wife with the aid of his small Missouri town, the evidence in the police's investigation begins to implicate Nick. As the evidence begins to mount, and the media picking his life apart, Nick tries to make sense out of the perplexing cryptic clues and stalking strangers that were left in the wake of his wife's disappearance, determined to find the truth.
GENERAL ANALYSIS First, clocking in at 149 min (2hrs 29min), this film is far too long. It is difficult for a perfect film to maintain audience attention for that long let alone one filled with so many flaws (like this one). The reason for this length is that this is two films masquerading as one. The first film (the first 90min) is a pretty good thriller; keeping the audience in the dark as to character motivations and raising doubt as to the likelihood of Nick's guilt or innocence. In the second film (the remaining 90min) we are given answers, which seems far less satisfying than the questions.
The end of the first film, is a shocking reveal of Hitchcockian proportions. The twist was captivating and riveting (at least while you were watching it for the first time) that left me at the edge of my seat. This is where most thrillers end, leaving the audience shocked and amazed; this film unfortunately keeps going. Coming off such a big reveal, leaving the audience in such a state of shell shock, the rest of the film quickly deflates into hammy character tropes (woman scorned) and unbelievable plot devices (learning how to frame someone by watching police procedurals) that quickly loses the audience's interests, while trying to cash in on (their rapidly depleting) goodwill and over investment.
Spoilers ahead
The second major problem with this film is the writing. Written for the screen by the book's author Gillian Flynn there are many problematic tropes, tonal shifts and toying with the audience that left me angry. I can understand and appreciate an author wanting to maintain creative control over their content and characters as their story(ies) are adapted across different mediums of entertainment. However, since I have not read the book I cannot say if it was changing the story to fit the screen that caused the film to falter and fail for me, or if it was adhering too close to the source material. Either way, the character motivations and development are difficult to digest. This all culminates in the climax of the film that leaves the audience empty and depressed.
The biggest problems of the writing is the character of Amy Dunne (Rosamund Pike). Her initial motivations for framing Nick are confusing and convoluted. While to some this may seem like part and parcel of the thriller genre, it comes off as unclear, lacking focus. It seems that Amy's reasons throughout the film seem to change with the wind, the film by the end, at last settles on the very tired and retreaded stereotype that she is crazy.
SOCIAL ANALYSIS
"Hell Hath No Fury like a Woman Scorned"
This film is a patriarchal fantasy, supporting the Men's Rights Movement; reiterating their anti-feminist doctrine that as women have gained more power in social institutions and become empowered as a result, men have been systematically emasculated (the masculine image that Nick seems to represent in the film). Essentially, this film serves as a cautionary tale to men regarding the "inherent dangers" of female equality and justice. The film subtly frames Amy's psychosis as the result of her power both in and out of her relationship with Nick. Additionally reinforcing the sexist stereotype that all women, especially wives, are jealous manipulative, conniving gold-diggers; Amy manipulates Nick in their relationship at every turn. This is illustrated by the reveal of Amy's set up of Nick for her disappearance. With Nick's emasculation on full display, the film prompts men to desire more control and command in the relationship by controlling women....which is usually achieved through violence. This violence is shown (symbolically) in the film when Amy is falling on hard times (losing money and being imprisoned by a former boyfriend (Neil Patrick Harris)).Through these sequences the audience is urged by the score, lighting, and cinematography, to revel in her fear; knowing that all that she will endure (physical or psychological) she will have "deserved it". Thus through the symbolic violence that she experiences, the audience is manipulated to want to see her hurt and punished...as a lot of men want to see women hurt and punished as a way to regain their "lost" masculinity.
Yet, not only does this film vilify women (at least those that don't follow binary gender norms), thereby justifying their own sexual assault, it also sympathizes with the white heterosexual male. Nick is the Men's Right's Movement's image of the "post-feminist" male that has been belittled and ignored causing men to lose their power. Therefore, his affair with one of his creative writing students is a result of wanting to gain some of that power back, and the audience is supposed to forgive this act as a minor indiscretion because he takes "minor" ownership of it ( but does not care about his girlfriend's feelings). This is playing off of the biologically deterministic stereotype that "men need sex, and it is in their nature to philander". As mentioned, since Nick has no power , the only thing that he can do to prove that he is still a man is to sacrifice himself and his happiness for his unborn child. Through that act he then regains his masculinity. What troubles me more than the anti-feminist, pro-white dude message that this film touts, is the film's success and what that reflects about our culture. This film is very popular. With a 88% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a lot of positive critical buzz this film is warmly embraced. I find this troubling, mainly because of the film's indictment of both marriage, feminism and women in general. Is the film's critical buzz due to the covert and invisible and visible forms of misogyny that have been embedded in our culture for the last 50 years? If so, will we see even more films being more openly misogynistic (like pornography) in the future? It bothers me to no end not only that these sexist stereotypes are still present in 2014, but that they are being repackaged and presented to see white heterosexual men as the victim. If this continues male privilege will remain completely invisible and any 3 dimensional strong female characters will be seen as nothing more than angry manipulative arrogant bitches and whores. This is the tide that we need to fight against, we can not have this wave gain ANY momentum.
CONCLUSION
I respect David Fincher and his (previous) work. Which is why I am hurt and confused that he would direct a film such as this. I hope this is not one of those issues where, due to social and political ideologies, I have to stop consuming the content that Fincher produces (as I have done with restaurants). I hope it was an oversight and a mistake on his part. Please do not see this film.
The 7th film in my
comprehensive analysis of The Films of Christopher Nolan is the mind bending InceptionNolan’s first original work since his first film Following,Inception took over 8 years to write. Initially conceived as a
smaller film, Nolan soon realized that if he was going to tell a story about
the intricacies of the mind, and the ability to navigate it, that he needed a
much wider canvas (and budget) on which to paint. From all accounts (the producers and the
director himself) Inception, as a potential film, was always in the background,
a labor of love that Nolan would work on during or in between other
projects. When The Dark Knight reached the box office record of 1 billion dollars,
Warner Bros. (the studio that has been Nolan’s most frequent studio
collaborator) gave Nolan’s Inception,
considered by them to be his “passion project”, a green light as a reward/thank
you. With multiple academy award nominations (including best original
screenplay for Nolan) and a win for Wally Pfister’s cinematography, this
“gamble” paid off for the studio both critically (86 % on Rotten Tomatoes) and
commercially bringing in a whopping $825,532,764 at the end of its box office
run.
PLOT
To stop a monopolistic energy
company, a rival competitor (Ken Wantanabe) hires Dominic Cobb (Leonardo
DiCaprio), a thief specializing in an esoteric form of psychic espionage to
plant an idea into the C.E.O’s (Cillian Murphy) mind in order to break up his
company. Tempted by the chance to return home after the death of his wife
(Marion Cotillard) Cobb assembles a team that includes: A point man (Joseph
Gordon Levitt), a forger (Tom Hardy), an architect (Ellen Page), and a chemist
(Dileep Rao) for their most difficult job…Inception.
SOCIAL ANALYSIS
“What is the most consistent parasite? ...an idea.” –
Cobb
Inception
is
a rich complex film with as many layers of social and psychological analysis as
there are layers of the dream state.
While the film often tends to identify itself as purely psychological,
blurring the lines between wakefulness and dreaming, examining how we process
loss and pain through dreaming (a form of dream therapy), and solidifying the
importance of belief. Looking at the
film sociologically though, we can see a number of themes that touch on the
social constructionism, the presentation of self, Socialization, and an allegory
to filmmaking.
“What is real is real in its consequences.”-
W.I. Thomas
Theme I: Social
Constructionism
Social
constructionism has its origins in both the sociological theoretical
perspective of Symbolic Interactionism and the earlier philosophical idea of
Pragmatism. The basic idea of Pragmatism is that what individuals consider to
be reality does not exist in any concrete space. Rather, reality is actively
created by those who live within it.
Symbolic Interactionism focuses on the individual within society having
the ability to interpret reality through the use of symbols. Symbols are
objects in social reality, both tangible and intangible, that have expressed
social meaning (Blumer 1969)[1].
These symbols are created and maintained through social interactions and
observations. Each different social setting or situation carries with it its
own set of rules and norms (and therefore a different reality) causing a type
of “shock” as the individual moves from one situation to another.
For Berger and Luckman (1966)[2],
the collective understanding and adherence to particular language, rituals,
belief systems, norms, and values shape the reality of both the individual and
the group. Therefore, the individual living within society is an active
participant in the development of both the collective consciousness of a group
of people, and her/his own perception of the world. This is because as we try to interpret and understand the rules and
norms of reality by interacting and observing other people, by that very same
action we are creating reality. This is because our actions in society are
observed and analyzed by others for their own understanding. To them, our
actions become social messages to regulate their own behavior. This is what Berger and Luckmann (1966)
allude to when they identify “society as objective [and] subjective reality”
(p. 47-183).
Berger
and Luckmann (1966) illustrate this in the following passage:
The reality of
everyday life further presents itselfto
me as an intersubjective world, a world I share with others. This
intersubjectivity sharply differentiates everyday life from other realities of
which I am conscious. I am alone in the world of my dreams, but I know that the
world of everyday life is as real to others as it is to myself. Indeed, I
cannot exist in everyday life without continually interacting and communicating
with others. I know that my natural attitude to this world corresponds to the
natural attitude of others…Most importantly, I know there is ongoing
correspondence between my meanings and their meanings in this world, that we
share a common sense about reality…The reality of everyday life is often taken
for granted as reality…It is simply there…I know that it is real. While I am capable of engaging in doubt about
its reality, I am obliged to suspend such doubt as I routinely exist in
everyday life. (p.23)
In the film, Cobb echoes these
sentiments when he explains the concept of shared dreaming; that in the dream a
person’s mind, quite efficiently, creates the world of the dream while
perceiving it at the same time. This is not unlike the way that we exist within
social reality. By living in society we interpret meaningful symbols but then our actions are interpreted by others to help them construct their own
reality. Thus, we are creating (for others) and perceiving ( for ourselves) reality much in the same way we do in our dreams; though
in our dreams, we do not experience the world in a linear fashion.
This scene is interesting because not only does it succinctly explain the way we socially construct
reality, but it suggests that this process can be interrupted or
manipulated. In the film, when a person
is in the dream state, they are vulnerable to manipulation and their knowledge
and secrets can be stolen through a process called extraction. Or, more
nefariously, an idea can be implanted in their head through inception. In social reality, the behaviors of
extraction and inception are performed through the process of Socialization,
the clearest examples of which come from media advertising and the
manufacturing of desire.
Theme II:
Socialization is Inception.
Socialization is the process of
social learning that individuals have to go through staring in childhood and
ending at a person’s death. This is a
life-long process because we do not have the intellectual capacity when we are
children to fully understand all of the roles and responsibilities that we will
take on as an adult. Therefore, information and learning is broken up into more
manageable/digestible pieces, segmented and separated by elaborate “rites of
passage” administered through complex agents
of socialization.[3]
It is this process, and these agents, that shape how we see the world. Therefore
our perception of the world, and our interactions within it can be manipulated.
One of the best examples of such
manipulation is through advertising. It
is the goal of advertising to manufacture desire for a particular product or
service. This advertising is done in a
variety of different ways: through entertainment (making a product feel
exciting and a gateway to a “good time”), through the appeal to the past (usually
using nostalgic images and music to appeal to a person’s childhood/youth) or by
using sex (which is predominantly done by the sexualizing and dismembering of
women’s bodies). This has become so much
a part of our culture that a lot of it has an unconscious effect. Yet, this unconscious effect does not just
apply to our desire for goods and services. Jean Kilbourne (1999)[4]
identifies that when ads are created they do more than just sell products; they
sell values and ideals about what is acceptable and normal in our society. Thus, through a catchy jingle, or a childhood
memory, these subtle ideas about what is sexy, acceptable human value, race and
ethnicity, masculinity and femininity are “inceptioned”
into us; meanwhile allowing us to think that our perception of the world (and
how we think about it) are solely our own.
Theme III: The
Presentation of Self.
“When an individual enters into the presence
of others, they commonly seek to acquire
information about him or to bring into play information about him
already possessed.” Goffman 1959: 1)[5]
The presentation of self is theory of
self-construction. Erving Goffman in his
doctoral dissertation, postulated that if we observe and interact to make sense
out of the world (see above) at some point we realize that others are doing the
exact same thing and looking at us for that information. Therefore, according to Goffman (1959), we
attempt to control how other people see us, to maintain a particular impression
about how we are perceived in the minds of our onlookers; whom Goffman (1959)
calls our “audience” (p.17).
We constantly perform for numerous
audience members for each specific impression we have. Whether it be at home
with your family, out with your friends, or at work, this performance is always
on. In these different spaces we use different language, different mannerisms
we engage in conversations about different things, in hopes to be seen a
particular way by our different audiences.
This process can be so powerful that the performer can “be taken in by
his own act; he can be sincerely convinced he can be sincerely convinced that
the impressions of reality that he stages is the real reality” (Goffman 1959:
17). However, even those of us who are
not taken in by our own performance understand that we don’t perform all of our
impressions at once, there are certain settings for a performance what Goffman
(1959) calls stages/regions.
These stages/regions are typically
divided into a binary: the front stage/region and the back stage/region. The front stage is given to the name where
the performance takes place, and the back stage is given to the area where the
performance is dropped and worked on (Goffman 1959: 107). Goffman also looks at
the way that social settings are constructed and notices that a majority of the
social world we live in is divided into frontages and back stages. We even do this psychologically, we give a
performance in a particular social setting, but when we leave that setting, or
we are not in front of that audience, our performance (for that particular
impression) is dropped. It is this constant raising and dropping of
performances that may highlight weakness in our own impressions. For that,
Goffman (1959) says we need teamwork and tact.
Teamwork is “any set of individuals who co-operate
in staging a single routine” (Goffman 1959: 79). An example of which could be a teacher and
her/his students creating and maintaining an impression of a classroom to any
outside observer (whom would become their audience). Tact is a set of behaviors that are employed by
team members, or sympathetic audience members, when an impression begins
to fail. Whether this is directly helping to smooth over cracks in a person’s
impression (as a team member might), or to ignoring those cracks when they occur, tact is a number of behaviors
an audience member might use to maintain the overall impression structure. Essentially, tact is used to protect a person’s impression,
because if one person’s impression fails, that puts all of the impressions in
jeopardy.
The presentation of self in Inception are the projections.
Projections in the film are images of people or objects in the dream that are “projected”
by the sleeper’s subconscious. This also includes the way each dreamer
looks. The way each person on the team
looks in the dream is a representation of how they see themselves or how they
want to be seen. Thus through this dream “projection” they are trying to
maintain a particular impression. If you look closely, each character has
subtle differences in their appearance that says something about
self-construction. Most commonly these differences are in clothing and
hairstyle; they tend to be more groomed with more expensive clothes this gets
into what Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu calls “taste”[6]
(which can be used to determine social class positions). It seems however that in order to get at the
socially constructed self of the characters in the film, you need to look at
their totems.
A totem (in the film) acts as an anchor
allowing the dream sharer to know when they are in reality and when they are
dreaming. It is a specific object that is unique to each person that has a
special property which only that person knows about. The way that the totem
acts and/or feels in the dream and in reality allow the dreamer to tell the
difference.
Totems we see in the film and what they
mean:
Dream Reality
Cobb: Wedding Ring Wearing it on his left hand Not wearing it
Mal: Top Spinning
will never stop Will
stop naturally
Arthur: Weighted Die Weighted side not down Weighted side down
Ariadne: Golden Bishop Will not fall correctly Fall on weighted side
Eames:
Poker
chip Multiplies
when rubbed together Nothing
happens
In regards to the presentation of self,
I find it very interesting that Cobb’s totem is his wedding ring and he only
wears it in the dream. Is it because he can only see the projection of Mal in
the dream, and therefore the only place he still feels married? Cobb does say to
Ariadne that “in his dreams they are still together”. I wonder (in the context
of the story) if this started after Mal’s death or if this was his totem before
(because in the film he mostly uses Mal’s). Did he use the totem in the same
way to distinguish reality before? This could also just be a clever way for the
film makers to allow the audience to keep track of whether or not they are
seeing a dream.
Mal is the other great example of the
presentation of self. In the film, we never see the real Mal. She is either
seen in flashbacks where she is depicted as mentally ill due to Cobb’s
successful inception, or she is portrayed as Cobb’s projection of her. Therefore, we are never given a clear image
of who Mal was, all we get is Cobb’s poor facsimile of her, and how he saw her
through what he could glean off of her own impression management.
“I
can’t imagine you with all of your complexity, with all your perfection and
imperfection. Look at you. You’re just a shade, a shade of my real wife. I am
sorry, it’s just not good enough.”- Cobb
While
I find this quote to be beautifully written and hauntingly romantic. I also
think this allowed Nolan to cop out a little bit.
In so many of Nolan’s films haven’t been a
showcase for women. Many of his stories (as brilliant as they are) are about white
dudes with angst. Angst that they have to solve by the end of the film. The one
thing that I can say about Inception is
that Nolan gave himself a creative and plausible way of dodging gender equality
(that does not even pass the Bachdel test) by making Mal’s shallow
one-dimensional “fem fatale” portrayal an important plot point. Additionally,
the character of Ariadne is very important to the team, she is the architect of
the dream space that is better than Cobb, and she acts as Cobb’s confidant. She
is the eyes through which we get to know Cobb.
However, it does irk me a bit that we never see her build any of the
dreamscapes we see later in the film, or that the majority of the time she is
having things explained to her, rather than doing something.
Theme IV:
Allegory to Filmmaking
Christopher Nolan loves film. Even though his
formal training is in literature, he has talked at great length about the power
of film to transform, allowing for experimental storytelling and an immersive
audience experience. It makes sense then that Inception, one of his most personal films (and original work),
would have a commentary on the filmmaking process.
Doing press for the film, Nolan
mentioned that the main cast represents key roles in the filmmaking
process. Cobb is the director, Mal represents the parts of the director that she or he puts into the film (Cobb’s
children is a metaphor for the film being a director’s “baby”), Arthur is the
producer/DP, Ariadne is the production designer, Eames is the actor, Yusuf is
visual effects director, Saito is the studio executive and Fisher represents
the audience. It is through Fisher’s role that Nolan’s commentary and
filmmaking pedagogy is displayed.
Through Fisher’s actions and the way
that the other characters interact with him Nolan is commenting on the nature
and power of film itself. Like Fisher, the audience is the target for the filmmaker,
to make them believe in a particular situation.
Sometimes this can be heavy handed through the use of exposition and a
common mistake of telling the audience something rather than showing them. Nolan brilliantly parodies this in Inception when the team runs the “Mr.
Charles Gambit” on Fisher making him aware that he is dreaming.
As in the clip, the filmmaking technique to
make the audience aware that they are watching a movie (taking them out of the
experience) is risky. But when it is done properly, as I think Nolan does here,
it can get the audience to go along with
you on the journey, the way that Fisher joins the team in the second level
of the dream state; working with the filmmakers to construct a new situation. Nolan seems to suggest that the
willingness for people to be a film audience presupposes that they are
(usually) on the side of the filmmakers; wanting to suspend disbelief and be
transported through storytelling. This
is similar to Goffman’s use of teamwork to create a social situation (see
above). In fact, the title card at the
end of the film reveals that you, the audience, have just experienced inception
by watching the film. The idea of
the story has been successfully implanted in your head, and no one knows, not
even the filmmakers, how the story will affect you; it could be a minuscule form of entertainment or it could completely change your whole social
viewpoint. For Nolan, that is the true
power of film.
PRODUCTION
Script
As was mentioned earlier, the script
took 10 years to complete. Originally written as a spec script presented to the
studio after Insomnia Nolan opted to
work on it a bit more, fleshing out the dream world by constructing diagrams of
the levels of the dreams and solidifying the rules of this universe. To that end, Nolan only mentions the origin
of the shared dreaming technology once, in what seems like a throwaway line Arthur
says:
“Shared
dreaming was originally designed by the military to allow soldiers to simulate
combat. They could kill each other over and over again without getting hurt.”
As
a sociologist, I find this deeply intriguing. This seems so plausible that it
scares me. It makes me wonder if Nolan is trying to make some type of veiled
social commentary about the military and technology, much in the same way he
gives the same sort of commentary about terrorism, and social class in the
later films of The Dark Knight Trilogy. To
me this statement could be easily applied to the way that the US military uses military
video games as both a recruitment tool, and a way for current soldiers to brush
up on battle tactics, hand eye coordination, and desensitization to violence
and war.
Visual F/X
Like his previous films, Nolan
does not use a second unit. All of the
shots are composed by Nolan and Director of Photography Wally Pfister. To that end, there is a level of consistency
throughout all of Nolan films. There is never a shot or a sequence that seems
out of place or not to Nolan’s sensibilities. In this film, what I found
interesting is the way that Nolan frames the dream world. I can only imagine
how much of a challenge this must have been, balancing the abstract nature of
dreaming with the structure of the film so that the audience isn’t alienated. This seems to be a bit easier for a director
like Nolan who consistently uses a non-linear story structure, which lends
itself to be able to tell a story set in the dreamscape.
The greatest example of the use of
practical effects is the gimble used in the rotating hallway scene. Inspired by
Kubrick’s use of the rotating set in 2001:
A Space Odyssey. Team Nolan created a hallway set (simulating the second
level of the Dream, Arthur’s level) that was able to rotate 180 degrees.
Cameras were mounted on the set to give the feeling of the rotation of the
room, while a crane mounted camera was uses to get the stable wide shots making
the action seem like it was taking place in shifting gravity.[7]
When the scene eventually shifts from
rotating gravity to zero gravity Team Nolan broke the sequence up into three
segments; in each segment they used a different rig to simulate the
weightlessness, effectively hiding the camera tricks from the audience. It is
sequences like this prove Nolan and Pfister to be amazing filmmakers and
supports Pfister being garnered with an Oscar for his work on the film. Special mention needs to be given to the
dedication and stamina of Joseph Gordon-Levitt who did the majority of his
stunts in this scene. Gordon-Levitt was
on the rotating set (having to learn a complex fight choreography in the
process) and on each of the three different rigs used in the zero gravity scene
in order to maintain the investment of the audience in the situation.
Music
Once again, Hans Zimmer is charged with
bringing musicality and lyrical life to Nolan’s films. Using the foundation of an Edith Pilaf song
(who Marion Cotillard played in La vie En Rose to win an Oscar) heard in the
film Zimmer constructs this masterpiece:
However
is a common misconception that Zimmer wrote this piece used in the third
trailer
Direction
It is a shame that Nolan wasn’t even nominated
for a best directing Oscar for this film. The film was nominated for a much
deserved best picture Oscar, although I assume this was a political move because
The Dark Knightwasn’t nominated for
best picture in 2008. The directing techniques used in this film to maintain
such a complex story a float while being able deliver spectacular set pieces
needs to be recognized and it consistently makes me angry that Nolan has been
passed over time and time again for much deserved recognition. The fact that Nolan has NOT been honored in
this way, proves to me that American cinema, and the majority of American
audiences, have lost the desire for the filmmaking craft and just want to see paper
thin stories held together by blurry CGI nonsense. YES! I am looking at YOU
Zack Snyder and Michael Bay!
CONCLUSION
This is my favorite, non-Batman Nolan
film to date. It is also one of the most Sociological films I have reviewed to
date. It is a great film with complexity of characters and story that does not
pander to the lifeless idiot masses that are just looking for escapism. Nolan
returns us to the craft of filmmaking that is rapidly eroding through the use
of technology, sluggish box office results, and unwillingness of the audience to
be enthralled. It is my hope, with InterstellarNolan will be able to capture the magic of the film in such a way that
ushers in a new era of well-crafted and critically successful filmmaking.
[1]Herbert
Blumer (1969).Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. p. vii
[2] Peter Berger
and Thomas Luckmann (1966). The Social
Construction of Reality: A treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge New York:
Anchor Books.
[3] The
individuals, organizations and institutions that assist in the process of
socialization throughout the life course (trajectory) of an individual. They
include: The family, daycare, schools, peer groups, the workforce and the
media.
[4] Jean Kilbourne
(1999). “Socialization and the Power of Advertising” In Seeing Ourselves: Readings in Sociology 7th edition eds.
Nijole Benekrautis New York: Pearson.
[5]Erving Goffman
(1959). The Presentation of Self in
Everyday Life New York: Anchor Books
[6]Taste is the idea
that through the consuming of products, entertainment and other aspects of
culture, a person can maintain a false impression. The careful
manipulation/display of taste, can result in having a false consciousness to
your actual social position in society.
[7]Geek Aside: The fight choreography that takes place
in the rotating hallway and in simulated zero gravity it excellent. It is full
of practical real world and useful martial arts techniques: the taisabaki
throw, brush, grab strike (aka hand pass) wrist locks and ground fighting front
guard top choke. Bravo!
Created by Michael DiMartino and Brian Konietzko, Avatar: The Last Airbender is one of the greatest animated shows ever created. Although originally conceived and marketed as strictly a "kids show" by distributing it through Nickelodeon studios and originally airing it on Saturday mornings; Avatar became a show for all ages with its complex layered story lines (involving season long story arcs,) and integrated rich character development while weaving religious (Buddhism) and Philosophical themes throughout its three season run. The show did not pander, and treated its audience like adults. To that end, Avatar: the last Airbender is an excellent example (if not the paragon) of a racial diverse, post modern, pro feminist show that deals with current social issues as told through the lens of a fantastical world.
PREMISE
Avatar: The Last Airbender is set in an ancient world heavily influenced by Chinese Mythology. In this world the earth is divided into four different nation based upon the four natural elements ( water, earth, fire and air). There is the Northern and Southern Water tribes, The Earth Kingdoms of Ba Singh Se and Omashu, The Fire Nation and The Air Nomads. Each of these nations have a culture and rituals that is influenced by their totemic element. Additionally, members of these nations are often born with the ability to manipulate their respective element. This behavior is called "bending".
The titular "Avatar" is a single person in the whole world who can "bend" and master all four elements. Having a life cycle of 170 years, the Avatar acts as a spiritual leader, guide and general force for peace in the world (i.e. The Dali Lama). At the end of an Avatar's life (by natural or unnatural causes) she or he is reincarnated into the next element/nation in "the Avatar Cycle" (see above).This not only allows the Avatar to live on throughout history, the cycle of reincarnation allows the Avatar the ability to tap into the power of all her/his past lives at a single moment. This is called "The Avatar State"
BOOK 1: WATER.
Plot
Book: 1 Water Begins 100 years after The Fire Nation declared war on the entire world. Avatar Aang (a 12 year old boy of the Air Nomads) and his animal spirit guide Appa, a flying bison, are released from a hundred year hibernation in an iceberg by Katara, and Sokka: siblings of the Southern Water Tribe. After some spiritual guidance from one of his past lives (Avatar Roku) Aang learns that he must master all four elements and confront Fire Lord Ozai before the end of summer which hails the return of Sozin's Comet which gives any Fire bender unbelievable power, a power that was previously used to wipe out all of the Air Nomads 100 years earlier to start the war.
Having only mastered the element of air, Aang and Appa, together with Katara, Sokka,and a flying lemur named Momo, must travel to the Northern Water Tribe to find a Waterbending Master so Aang can learn the next element in the cycle. Their journey is complicated by Prince Zuko the banished son of Ozai that seeks the Avatar in order to return to the Fire Nation and regain his honor.
BOOK 1: WATERANALYSIS A Rough Start
The beginning of any show is always a period of adjustment as the creators attempt to find their footing, solidify their tone in relationship to the theme they want to present, while creating and maintaining audience interest. Avatar was no different. In the beginning, (especially the first few episodes) the show focused on child friendly humor of sight gags, physical comedy and small amounts of toilet humor. There was also little to no reference to the story complexity, religious and philosophical themes that populated the later seasons. Additionally, the early episodes animation was blurred and unclear (as they weren't yet digitally producing the show's animation in HD). While this was a a bit rough on an older audience when it first aired, it was a hit with the younger audience.
Yet, in retrospect, it is refreshing to see the characters that you fall in love with at the beginning of their journey, full of hope, and humor considering all that will happen to them later. Thus upon multiple viewings, these earlier episodes are enriched with the audience knowledge of the future. You start to see all of the seeds that the creators planted that pay off one or even two seasons later.
Some of the best Seeds in Book 1:
Iroh redirecting Lighting for the first time in the series
In the Avatar: The Last Airbender universe all of the bending arts are based on different types of Chinese martial arts. The creators of the show had the martial art bending form be a representation of each Nations respective element. Therefore each martial art bending form represented one of the four bending elements. Tai Chi with it's focus on fluid movements is the basis for Water-bending. Hung-gawith its ideas of soft (Crane) and Hard (Tiger) power that is rooted to the ground is the basis for Earth-bending. Northern Style Shaolin with its dynamic movements and linear movement encompasses Fire-Bending Finally, Baguahas a lot of circular movements and deflecting strikes that makes it perfect for Air-bending.
Throughout the rest of the series other martial art forms are brought in to either explain a particular person's unique use or ability to bend the elements that maybe outside the standard styles listed above. Or they explain a form of fighting in the Avatar universe that does not involve the bending of the elements. In Book 1, one such fighting style is that of the Kyoshi Warriors. Their style of fighting is based upon the redirection of a persons momentum and force focusing on keeping their opponent off balance, they also use Fans, shields and Katanas; which makes their fighting style a combination of Aiki-juitsu, Tessenjutsu (war fan) and Battojutsu (art of the Katana). This also means that this is one of the few fighting styles in the Avatar universe that is based on Japanese Martial arts styles. Author's opinion: They are Bad Ass. Evidence:
SOCIAL ANALYSIS
Race and Ethnicity
Avatar is one of the few american shows with a principle cast of characters that are all non-white. Each nation in this world is based on an Asian and Pacific Islander Ethnicity (API). Through a careful analysis of the way each character is drawn, and the cultural customs and rituals they adhere to, it is clear that each Nation's ethnicity has the following primary cultural influences: The Fire Nation are Chinese, The Earth Kingdoms are Mongolian, The Water Tribes are based on the Inuit and Eskimo cultures and the The Air Nomads are Tibetan. Additionally, as previously mentioned, Kyoshi island is proxy for Japan.
However, even though each nation has a primary culture that they draw upon many other diverse Asian culture practices. From ideas of filial piety, honor, shame, cycle of life, and the balance of nature that we see in the series all come from eastern philosophical teachings (Taoism, the I Ching, Buddhism etc). Additionally, some of the practices performed by certain leadership the Avatar Universe such as a coup, totalitarianism, censorship of information often parallel governmental practices of China and North Korea.
Looking more deeply into these real world parallels it becomes clear that there is an allegorical similarity between The Fire Nations genocide of the Air Nomads and the current real world conflict between China and Tibet. The historical conflict between the Mongolians and China is inverted in the Avatar universe; positioning China (The Fire Nation) as the Invading army and the Mongols (The Earth Kingdom of Ba Singh Se) protecting themselves behind a "great wall". (* though alluded to in Book 1, these become major events during Book 2) Thirdly, the size and political social power of the Inuit and Eskimo cultures in the world today ( only 120,000 people identify as such in only three countries: Greenland, Canada and the United States) is paralleled by The Water Tribes in the world of Avatar.
Unfortunately, when the film adaptation of Book 1 was produced, written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan all of the protagonists were portrayed by white actors and the antagonists were portrayed by middle eastern or Indian actors. A gross misrepresentation of the diversity of the show this lead to a huge public outcry and resurgence of activism around the "white washing" of racially diverse characters in film and TV now re-dubbed Racebending
Feminism
Throughout the whole of the series, Avatar: The Last Airbender consistantly, (and pretty excellently) defys socialized gender norms, stereotypes and promotes gender bending outside of the binary system of gender classification (otherwise known as The Gender box model). Many of the protagonist show a layered and contexual gender identity that is a part of their personality Consistently, the show features multi- faceted male and female characters that move beyond the socialized male/female, masculine/feminine dichotomy. Three prime examples are the Book 1 protagonists of Aang, Katara, and Sokka.
Aang is written and portrayed as a non-violent pacifist (given his training by the monks) who is emotionally invested in the balance of nature and its animal inhabitants. Aang's masculinity is not based in violence,or bravado but in caring and compassion for all life. This compassion is his reason to fight when he has to (in self defense) but only when all other avenues of diplomacy have been exhausted. In Book 1, we see Aang's natural airbending nature is to avoid and evade. And in later seasons he has a problem with facing a problem head on and standing his ground. (more on that later).
Katara is the heart of the group she perfectly balances the complexities of modern femininity. She is the person that actively challenges the archaic sexism that her culture is steeped in the ways that she openly argues with her brother and, at the end of Book 1, challenges an old (male) waterbending master's sexism, by dueling him...and is able to change his mind. Katara is fiercely loyal to her friends and family she is able to both stand her ground and fight but also be a healer.
It is through Sokka that the show really expresses its feminist message in Book 1. It is Sokka's reformation from sexism to gender equality that solidifies the show's egalitarian message. In the first few episodes of the series he expresses the socialized sexism of his culture. As the episodes progress, and his sexist notions of the "weakness" of women are proven inaccurate time and time again, (by his interactions and relationships with (Katara, Suki, and Yue) Sokka slowing starts to embrace the show's message of feminism (even going so far as training with the all female Kyoshi Warriors and protesting the lack of female agency of arranged marriages) by Book's end.
The Feminism of Avatar has been written on extensively and This section will be expanded on in a separate post about Feminism in Avatar after the three book review has been completed. Until that time, read This, This and this.
Favorite Episodes in Book 1:
1) King of Omashu (BUMI!!!)
2) The Warriors of Kyoshi ( 'Nuff said)
3) The Waterbending Master (See fight above)
4) The Blue Spirit ( character development and great action)
5) Siege of the North parts 1 and 2 (Season finale Show finds its footing)
CONCLUSION
While I believe Book 1 of Avatar to be the weakest of the show's three seasons, it is still better than 95% of material that has been produced. Its shaky start gives way to a solid foundation by books end. That foundation, at its core is about character, feminism, equality and diversity. This foundation that is built upon with the superb Book 2: Earth that is considered the shows equivalent of The Empire Strikes Back.
Unless you've been living under a rock, or (more likely) comfortably trapped in your Millsian Private Orbits:
“Nowadays people often feel that their private lives are a series of traps. They sense that within their everyday worlds, they cannot overcome their troubles, and in this feeling, they are often quite correct. What ordinary people are directly aware of and what they try to do are bounded by the private orbits in which they live; their visions and their powers are limited to the close-up scenes of job, family, neighborhood; in other milieux, they move vicariously and remain spectators. And the more aware they become, however vaguely, of ambitions and of threats which transcend their immediate locales, the more trapped they seem to feel.” (Mills 1959: 3) - See more at: http://sociologicalimagination.org/archives/6506#sthash.cZTXw5vZ.dpuf
Eduardo Bonilla Silva, Sociologist, Race Scholar and author of the book Racism without Racist discusses the idea of colorblindness and racial denial in the majority of his work. According to Silva, the colorblind ideology is a way to minimize racism as a structural social problem, and transform it into an individual/personal problem; thereby maintaining levels of inequality and denying the experiences of people of color. We see this racial deflection in full effect by (a majority of ) conservative media outlets and political pundits (who are most often white men who deny their own privilege) when reporting or responding to the events unfolding in Ferguson.
Additionally, The other common narrative being pulled from the "colorblind" shelf and dusted off is "the good kid" trope. Initial reports coming in about Michael Brown's shooting (even the one previously posted above) framed him as a "good kid" that didn't deserve to die. While this may indeed be true, the implications of the "good kid" trope speaks volumes about the value of people of color as a whole. First, the fact that the phrase "a good kid" has been uttered illustrates the overarching stereotype that the majority of black teens aren't considered "good kids" which frames Michael Brown as an exception to the rule (stereotype). Thereby defining the life of people of color, especially young black men, as considerably less than [people who are white]. Secondly, this allows (predominantly white) individuals to be outraged by the shooting of Michael Brown but still see the majority of people of color in a negative light. This the same thing that happened with the election of Barrack Obama, after which white guilt dropped and the denial of racism rose.
There have been scholars and Sociologists (other than myself,) that have been trying to push against the tide of race denial in the mainstream media with sound Sociological analysis. Some of those individuals have been Cornel West, Evan Stewart, Peter Kaufman, and a favorite of mine: Tim Wise . Some news outlets have even suggested a reading list (with some of the authors I previously mentioned) to give the public some racial and historical context to the Ferguson shooting that is (as I have mentioned) the most recent event in a long history of police brutality, violence and discrimination of people of color by those in authority.
In the popular media however, I have to commend two hosts John Stewart and John Oliver. The John's have both synthesized the arguments of race scholars and Sociologist ( albeit with a quipy humorous tone) but they also take to task some of the inane, colorblind, and down right racist remarks that ignore multiple forms of privilege.
John Stewart is up first:
While I love his analysis (especially the serious tone at the end) The studio's independent research study he mentions seems to be framed as a way to legitimize his argument when the other information he cites or provides does that already...it just seems redundant as if to say "See we're not racist!" Also, while acknowledging the existence of white privilege and the different experiences that people who are white have compared to people of color is important I wish John Stewart took more ownership of his own white privilege publicly.
John Oliver is Next:
Oliver does take ( a little) more ownership of his white privilege but he also provides commentary of the militarization of the police force in Ferguson and the overarching gun culture( that is the source of other problems recently) which I think is important.
Regardless of their accuracy, the general problem with these analyses is that they are presented with the intent to be humorous and entertain. The unfortunate result of this is (outside of the depressing statistic that it is through these programs that the majority of young adults get their news) that these serious issues are handled in a reductive manner, and that people truly miss the gravity of the situation that is being reported. While I am grateful to the John's for bringing relevant and accurate analysis to the masses, I would like them to provide a list of other reading material people can access if they want to follow their stories more academically.
