Sociology Alert! The Racist Media Dance: Dolezal and Domestic Terrorism in Charleston

INTRODUCTION

So far, 2015 has been a difficult year for whiteness. It is becoming harder and harder for white Americans to remain “color-blind” in the wake of so many acts of overt racial violence against people of color and narratives of those who would attempt to co-opt racial experiences by participating in blackface cropping up in the Mainstream media. Yet, even with its difficulty level increased, like a wild animal backed into a corner, this provokes the “rationalizing whiteness media machine” to work even harder to do the (all too common) “media dance” of isolating these incidence as both unrelated and individualized.  That, regardless of the volume and propensity of the stories ensconced in blatant structural racism, many media outlets will mask it through rhetoric steeped in common color-blind excuses of mental illness and poor decision making.

DOLEZAL AND SYMBOLIC ETHNICITY

There has been a lot written about Rachel Dolezal recently. A woman who was born to white parents has, for the last 7 years or so, been identifying, and to a large extent passing, as biracial.  When this story initially broke, there was a lot of questions about the legitimacy of her claim and (at least from the media outlet ensconced in whiteness) whether or not a white person could identify and construct a “trans racial identity” in which a person could identify as another race or ethnicity, thus being able to construct a dissident racial performance. This has led to many erroneous comparisons to the transgender narrative of Caitlyn Jenner. 

            The narratives of Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal are not that same thing. We promote the struggle felt by Caitlyn Jenner because of the strict imposition of a binary gender system that limits gender expression to a simplified either/or choice based around the validation of reproduction. That if we had a more fluid public understanding of gender then we would all live within a broader and much more widely acceptable gendered spectrum[1]  Dolezal’s narrative is a prime example of white privilege through what Mary Water’s calls Symbolic Ethnicity.[2] This is the idea that those categorized as “white” (usually of European descent) through cultural assimilation have been able to abstractly connect to their heritage without consequence (because to whites ethnicity does not matter). Additionally, this allows white the ability to construct a multi-cultural identity through cultural consumerism. As an example, as a white person, I can listen to Celtic music, be Buddhist, train in the martial arts and French forms of fencing, love Italian food, while having a German heritage where I am not punished or admonished by society for not knowing my language, or have to apologize for Nazism. Whereas many people of color are seen as traitors or pariahs if they don’t know their language (e.g. Spanish for Latinos) or don’t comment on social and historical events (e.g. immigration and slavery for Latinos and African Americans respectively). 

 Dolezal fabricated racial identity takes this notion of symbolic ethnicity from beyond just a consumerist model into one of a racist caricature. Not only did she identify and embrace aspects of black culture without sanction, she took the extra step and became a parody through blackface.  The very idea that she has the ability to shed her race like a snake skin does not promote the false notion of racial fluidity; it expressively highlights white privilege. For the simple fact that people of color cannot shed their black and browness when it suits them, as Dolezal shed her whiteness.        

            What is also troubling is the way that the common explanation of race as a Social Construct was used in an attempt to support this “trans racial” myth.  This misconception here is that just because race is a social construct, which it is, that does not mean that the way race is socially constructed is devoid of meaning. Race matters, a lot. This can be illustrated in the many ways Dolezal attempted to legitimize her constructed blackness (through a fake father of color, changing her hair style and darkening her skin). This actions also delegitimize any good Dolezal could have done as a white ally to improve the lives of people of color rather than try and co-opt their struggle

            Yet, the most troubling, and sociologically interesting aspect of this case is that she was able to “pass” as black, gain scholarships, and be hired as the local chapter president of the NAACP  through adopting culturally specific stereotypes.  The fact that all it takes to convince the general public of a multicultural identity is all based in cosmetic aesthetics and stereotypical behavior, shows that our ideas of race are still quite superficial, and more importantly, we are not as post racial as we would have ourselves to believe.

            As a final note on the matter of Dolezal, I want to echo the sentiments expressed on the most recent Bitch Media Propaganda Backtalk podcast.  In this episode, the hosts point out another example of Dolezal’s white privilege is her ability to take news coverage away from the actual lives of black women.  The very epitome being that we all know the name Rachel Dolezal but we don’t remember the names of women/girls of color that were victimized during the same time period (Arnesha Bowers) and McKinley pool incident, or the women who started the #BlacklivesMatter movement namely Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi. This is a perfect example of the symbolic annihilation of race and gender.  

Here is some Brilliance from Maya Rudolph:

RACIAL VIOLENCE POLICE AND BEYOND

Many Sociologists and Anti-Racist advocates have already discussed the racialization of people of color within the current context of escalated tension between people of color and the police. I use the term “escalated” because there has been a long history of tension between people of color and the police so much so that there friction is normalized, expected and warranted. It was only recently that the media has been saturated with accounts of people of color being harassed, beaten and shot (and killed) by police.[3] 

Note on the video: I find it interesting that white male (presumably) parents take it upon themselves to calm the "out of control" black teenagers. Yet, this is not framed as interfering in police procedures. Neither are they brought up on charges.  This is a prime example of white male privilege.  

Yet, this escalation is, in part, a social construct. While this tension may seem escalated, it is only due to the increased media coverage. Middle class and affluent white folks who are secure in their privilege and trapped in the false consciousness that police (the system and the individuals) serve, protect, and punish equally: regardless of race, class, gender, nationality, or disability (See my Post on Ferguson and Colorblindness) see more black and brown faces on the news being harassed and they think it’s a novelty, or at the very least,  nostalgic; reminiscent of an assumed bygone era; when this is an everyday reality for people of color. Especially for victims: Treyvon Martin[4], Jordan Davis[5] Michael Brown [6]EricGarner[7] Freddie Gray[8] and Walter Scott[9] The offenders of these murders were acquitted, not charged, insufficiently charged, or only charged after intense public outcry.   These are just a few examples of the systemic nature of violence against people of color both from the police and from civilians.   

Example: Riot, what’s in a name?

A Google search for “Balt” auto finishes with “Baltimore Riots” as the first suggestion and “Baltimore Riots 2015” as the second suggestion.  It is quite understanding that the Google finishing algorithm would “naturally” turn “Balt” into “Baltimore” as “Balt” can be considered a root of the latter.  The issue is that it includes the word “riot”.  To some, this may not be an issue, identifying that Google, in its efficiency, is giving you what you are looking for (with an accuracy that borders on precognition). Culling from news articles, blog posts, and other interested parties and investors; Google assumes a user is searching for information about the civil unrest that occurred in Baltimore. Thus, since many articles and posts about the recent protest and unrest often use the word “Riot” it makes sense for Google to auto finish the word “ Balt” with “Baltimore Riot”  As a Sociologist, however; I take issue with the use of the term “Riot” when explaining the civil disobedience in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray while in police custody.  Far too often, whenever people of color protest, or are just in a large group in public, they are met with a “show of force” by police (in riot gear) and threatened with violence. Meanwhile, white violent outburst are labeled with less harsh rhetoric and explained away.

There is a video for that:

THE TERRORISM OF SYSTEMIC WHITE SUPREMACY

On Jun 17^th 2015 Dylann Roof opened fire during a service at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston South Carolina killing 9 people. Even though this is currently being investigated as a hate crime (which it is) This also needs to be labeled as a form of Domestic Terrorism.

Before 9/11, the idea of terrorism was, no pun intended, foreign to individuals in the United States.  Because 9/11 was the first incident in the United States that was publicly framed as “a terrorist attack”. That label, and the “War on Terror” that followed, set a president that only identified “Terrorism” as something foreign born, outside of the United States.  Add to this the racialization of a terrorist that resembles someone from the Middle East and you have a recipe that cloaks the compounded White Domestic Terrorism that people of color have felt in the United States for centuries. From Slavery, lynchings and Jim Crow Laws, to Mass Incarceration Police brutality and Police Shootings; the violence in South Carolina is just the latest in a long history of domestic terrorism perpetrated against people of color.

 Yet again, however, the media dance began with the overall shock and confusion of white pundits and news anchors continuing on with questions of the shooters sanity.  The “insanity defense” is a classic trope used by the media dance of the white racial social structure as a way to isolate this incident rather than see it for what it is; more of the same color- blind white avoidance that has permeated our history that it seems to value people of color as inadequately less than…disposable. To illustrate this, ask the question, would we even think of using the “insanity defense” if the shooter was black? No. To further individualize the incident we blame the White supremacist group for corrupting what was otherwise a “good kid”. In the coming weeks and months other phrases will follow, that he was “on the wrong path” or that he was “misguided”. There will be little or no mention in the mainstream media dance of this being a symptom of a white supremacism that has been normalized in our country and masked by our ignorance and desire to be color blind.

A debate that perfectly epitomizes the normalization of white Supremacy in the United States is the protection of and overall embrace of the the confederate flag. While due to the recent public outcry perceptions have shifted (for the time being). It's continued use, support and reproduction solidifies the dehumanizing of people of color as beloved cultural history among the southern states.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the racial media dance is far from over. Rachel Dolezal will get a book deal and a documentary about her, there will be more acts of violence against people of color both from the authority and from others (probably more in 2015), and even though some of us are having more nuanced discussions about race today, history has shown us that it will not last.  When the dance is complete, the polymorphic system of structural racism will once again temper and cool into a new structure of racial ignorance, ambivalence and color blindness with the knowledge of these past flare ups of awareness will provide the structure with teachable moments about how to remain invisible.        

---

[1] Based upon the work of West and Zimmerman, Judith Butler, and Lisa Wade 

[2] You can view the article here

[3]  As of this writing, in 2015 alone 541 people have been killed by police in the United States with a majority of them being unarmed persons of color. 

[4] A Stand your ground case in Florida that resulted in the Acquittal of George Zimmerman for shooting unarmed Trayvon Martin Feb 2012

[5]  Jordan Davis was shot and killed by Michael Dunn outside of a Convenience store in Florida Nov 2012

[6] The murder of Michael Brown by police sparked the civil unrest in Ferguson August, 2014

[7] Eric Garner was a killed by a non-sanctioned police chokehold in New York City in July of 2014.  The police officer involved was not indicted Garners pleads of “I can’t breathe.” Were used during the public outcry and subsequent protests.

[8] Freddie Gray’s death while in custody sparked the civil Unrest in Baltimore and fueled the #BlackLivesMatter campaign April 12^th 2015

[9] Walter Scott was shot in the back while evading police on Apri 4^th 2015

Sociology Alert! SCOTUS's Sweet Jam of Marriage Equality

         Boom, SCOTUS,  now drop the mic. In a historic and landmark decision this morning Jun 26th 2015, The Supreme Court determined that gay marriage bans by state are illegal. The result has made Gay Marriage legal  in all 50 States!!!! This is beyond amazing and wonderful, As an advocate for marriage equality and ally for gay rights, this is a BIG win, especially when just a decade earlier we saw gay marriage bans coming out of the woodwork and the stand off between San Francisco and the state of California on this issue at a similar time.  We have come a long way.
           The structural legalization of marriage for all is a long jump leap forward, but we have to remember that just because there is legal action, it does not mean that it is the end of discrimination (especially for LGBTQAI). The recent and very public race based murders in South Carolina is an all too clear example of that.  And, it is important to note that this supreme court decision was not unanimous (it barely passed with a 5-4 vote). With the two Obama appointees in favor and the two Bush appointees in dissent, this decision makes me both thankful and relieved that we don't have the court we did 10 years ago. Kind of like when you knock into something fragile, and it wobbles for a long time before settling; you always imagine it breaking.  So too do I wonder what would have happened if the decision would have gone the other way.  Yet, we don't have to imagine, all we have to do is look no further than the scathing remakes of the dissenting opinions
         Chief  Justice Roberts' (in all his creepy sweater vest glory) smartly couched his anti- gay descent in "states rights" rhetoric (see first link above).  But what was really troubling is Justice Scalia's comments in which he likens marriage to a prison for the freedom of intimacy, and that the ruling was "hippie" nonsense.  Thus, it is clear that we still have work to do on this issue. I suspect that with this new sexual egalitarian landscape, we will see some backlash, some outrage and a bit of back sliding. Just because you say people have freedom doesn't make it so. In fact, that is often used to vale discrimination. Equality has to be practiced; it is a continuous fight.

  Yet, I do hope this trend continues around the world  (in part because I want that Australian couple to Divorce.) It is a glimmer of hope in 2015 which has , up until this point, been a throw back to years of open and visible discrimination. I could not have asked for a better way to celebrate the 2 year anniversary of this blog.

 "TODAY, WAS A GOOD DAY"

The Furious Age of Feminism: The Mad Max and Avengers' Gender Controversy

INTRODUCTION

              The 2015 summer movie season has started off with a bang, just not in the way that many people expected.  The two biggest (and certainly the loudest) films so far have been Avengers: Age of Ultron and Mad Max: Fury Road. While the former's success may be as unsurprising as water being wet, it is the latter, often thought of a niche sci-fi franchise, that has been  garnering a lot of the buzz. Therefore, after seeing both films, and witnessing the gender fueled outrage and discourse surrounding them; rather than just write a sociological review for each film (some great ones you can find here and here) I thought I would couple my reviews with an analysis of social uproar and "civic unrest" that these films have caused... from a socially conscious, disabled straight white (usually) cis gendered feminist (allied) male perspective.

"Spoilers." 


"BLOWING UP" 'THE AVENGERS'


            On May 1st (in the States) Avengers: Age of Ultron was released to huge box office numbers. Though not outperforming its predecessor both critically, or commercially; it is still a world wide hit. Yet, the film seems to lack the overall joy, and mass societal embrace that the first film received.  Part of this due to the the nature of sequel [hulk]buster filmmaking.
            In an early interview, after the first Avengers film was released, Director Joss Whedon was asked How he would  "top" Marvel's The Avengers. he simply said "I can't".  He went on to say that the only way that you move forward with such an immense franchise, is to make a smaller, more intimate film, that focuses on character and the relationships within the team.  When I heard that, I got really excited.  Being a Joss Whedon fan since Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I was confident that he could make a meaningful, emotionally resonant film while still having thrilling moments of action and spectacle.  Unfortunately, due to producer meddling, what we got was anything but perfect. Age of Ultron is a bloated, often incoherent mess, that cripples under its own weight of advertisements for future films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).
             Avengers: Age of Ultron has a multiple viewing requirement; not for the sheer pleasure of the experience, but just to understand all of the plot threads, character motivations and (at times) dialogue that is packed into it. Upon my first viewing of the film, I became nauseous just trying to follow the initial action sequence that begins at the height of the Crescendo of the last film (tracking shot of all the Avengers fighting together). At that moment, and confirmed by the rest of the film, the dream of a "smaller" film that Whedon had envisioned (and I had hoped for) was murdered in front of me with every action set piece that was constantly "turned up to 11". I left the film not questioning whether or not it was a superior film to the original, but on whether or not I even enjoyed it.

This is basically how I felt throughout the film:

            I liked the film better on viewing it a second time.  During the repeat viewing, I latched on to the quieter moments in the film; the party scene was wonderful, as was everything at Hawkeye's Farmhouse.  These are the sequences that give the bare bones of the smaller film I was looking for and what (I believe) Whedon wanted to initially create.    

 THE BLACK WIDOW PROBLEM?

            One of the major issues with The Avengers franchise, and superhero teams in general, is the overall lack of representation, visibility and agency for its female characters.  Overall, there are less female characters than male characters in an ensemble cast, which often requires all female viewers to (impossibly) identify with that (usually) one character. Conversely, again that (usually) one character is (impossibly) tasked to be everything for all women. In addition, female characters usually have less screen time, secondary plot lines (That is if they have a character arc at all, and are more than a walking trope.) and are often "shipped" or "fridged" (more on that later).       Black Widow seems to be the epitome of a lot of these tropes for the MCU.  Although she has fared better in the hands of more competent and less sexist director (i.e. Joss Whedon), the lack of Black Widow merchandise (comparative to her male counterparts) and a lack of a Black Widow feature film maintains her irrelevance to shareholders and the "Powers that Be" at Disney/Marvel.

 Fandom has become so impatient for a Black Widow Solo film that one fan produce this small piece of Awesomeness:

             These problems get exacerbated when during the marketing of Avengers: Age of Ultron, cast members Jeremy Renner and Chris Evans slut shame the character of Black Widow in a recent interview  

Then, almost immediately,they recanted their statements.  It is this behavior that illustrates the normalization of the devaluing of women in our society and, to put a finer point on it, a perfect example of The Rape Culture. 

            The reaction of Renner and Evans is a common one in our culture when Patriarchal norms are being challenged. Often, the women who challenge the sexist status quo are often vilified and humiliated because (some) men are socialized to believe that female agency, autonomy, and civil liberties come at the cost of masculinity.  In short, they believe that female agency emasculates men. Because of this notion, the vilification of women is done through sexualization (as the above comments demonstrate) and the humiliation is done though rape.  Rape is then used as a way to both discipline women, and to regain any perceived "lost" masculinity.  This is ever more heightened when the (aforementioned) total lack of diversity of female characters ( as it is in Marvel films) results in the same character (Black Widow) being a champion of a certain brand of feminism, as well as a firebrand and a scapegoat. Therefore, regardless of being labeled a "feminist icon", Black Widow is also the victim of harassment and a target of hatred not only by the patriarchal rape culture, but by any social justice group who believes that her portrayal betrays the their ideology in which she has been lauded as a paragon.  

THE CONTROVERSY 

          In addition to the general problem of too few female characters, and the distastefulness of slut shaming, the current embroiled controversy that the character of Black Widow is in the middle of stems from a "key" scene in Avengers: Age of Ultron.  In that scene, Bruce (Hulk) and Natasha (Black Widow) discuss their mutual attraction and their future together. Bruce chides himself and Natasha for their feelings and "sees no future" for them because he can't have children. In response, Natasha tells Bruce about her "graduation ceremony" from The Black Widow Program, in which successful graduates are sterilized.  It is at that moment that Natasha labels herself a monster. To many, this labeling was interpreted to mean that Natasha felt that she was a monster because she could not conceive.  Therefore, by extension, the message is that ANY woman who can not biologically conceive should consider themselves a monster. This message, if true, is horrific and it needs to be outed as ludicrous and disgusting. While much of the internet has done that (see some of the links above) there was also the collateral damage of kicking Joss Whedon off twitter  (regardless of the PR). From my Sociological perspective, I can see both sides and believe there is a double standard at play here.
             First, I completely understand why some people (especially women who can't biologically conceive) could interpret the scene in the manner stated above. This would be especially hurtful if any of those people (who could conceive or not) had held up Joss as a feminist icon, or at the very least, a strong allied advocate.  To that point, there has been some chatter around the internet chastising these individuals by making the point that they (the now Whedon disillusioned) did not attack well known, and openly sexist directors, like Michael Bay; getting him to quit social media like they did Whedon.  The answer is simple: We expect more from our heroes than we do our villains. We expect Michael Bay to produce an incomprehensible, overblown, and bloated piece of sexist  racist homophobic garbage; because that is the personality that his films have shown us.  With Buffy, Angel, Firefly and to some extent Marvel's The Avengers, Joss Whedon has proven to be a great feminist ally in the past. He has this great quote a few years ago (paraphrasing):

" Everyone asks me: 'Why do you always write strong female characters.' and I say 'Because you keep asking me that question'."

Therefore, it is understandable for those who have placed Joss Whedon in their Reference Group/role model for strong male ally, that the realization of his human fallibility, that he is not the "perfect" ally, may lead to some cognitive dissonance that results in Joss being rejected by fans. This is a valid interpretation and Joss Whedon should apologize if ever met with such criticism.
           Secondly, as a point of contention, and (again) as a straight white cis gendered man. I interpreted the scene differently.  Given the context surrounding it. I thought the monster line did not expressively say (nor imply) that Natasha was a monster because she couldn't biologically have kids, but because that choice was taken from her in a monstrous act, in order to make her a less compassionate assassin. ( Illogical I know). In other words, Natasha's monstrosity lies not in her ability or inability to have children, but in being an Assassin and murderer.  A past that was alluded to in the first Avengers film ("red in my ledger").

Skaar: Son of Hulk

            Finally, it is a bit of a hypocritical gendered double standard that many have called out Joss Whedon for vaguely implying that Black Widow's "Monster" line has anything to do with sterilization, when he has Bruce Banner plainly say "There is no future with me because I can't [biologically] have children". ( Fans of the comics know that that's not true). Bruce's clear statement of infertility (something that was again implied in the first Avengers film) implies that it results in him being a monster, or it's a product of him being a monster. NO ONE IS UP IN ARMS ABOUT THAT!  Because, everyone assumes that he is a monster BECAUSE of the Hulk NOT BECAUSE HE CAN'T HAVE KIDS! Why? Because men aren't socialized to want to have children, the way women are expected to. We see men's identity existing outside of being a husband and a father while we struggle with that separation for women; even in 2015.  If we are going to blame Joss Whedon for the portrayal of Natasha Romanov, we also need to blame him for the portrayal of Bruce Banner.  They are both monsters, not because they can, or can not have children, but because of the lives they've ruined, and the people they've hurt (and killed). 

Side Note: Was Quicksilver fridged (much in the same way many female characters are in comics) just to advance the plot and development of Scarlet Witch? If this was intentional, Bravo Whedon for playing against Tropes. If not, it is just a happy accident!

A 'MAD' 'FURY' FOR THE SENSES 

       Mad Max: Fury Road can only be described as beautiful insanity.  George Miller returns to his seminal Dystopian epic series (that took over 15 years to produce)as he also returns to form with this adrenaline fueled chase film that is short on dialogue, but big on spectacle.  Here, Miller schools everyone (even Christopher Nolan) in his ability to not only weave in CGI amidst a majority of practical effects but also by giving us a story that, while seemingly simple, is rich with character development and  progressive attitudes.      
        In this go round, Max is played by Tom Hardy. Hardy is not a stranger to terse characters, but as Max, he is laconic. Yet, even then, his Max emotes more with a simple (half) thumbs up than Mel Gibson did in any of the previous films (which are not required viewing).  The real star however is Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa who is attempting to escape a tyrannical warlord with his "wives" hoping to find safe passage to "the greenplace". Max is the drifter that falls in the middle of the situation and decides to help. What follows, is an orgiastic feast of colors and sounds that are so visceral; the smell of grease, exhaust and sand seemed to hang in air that you would swear they brought back smell-o-vision.  .  Hell, there is a guitarist who plays a guitar that doubles as a flamethrower while riding on a monster truck! No one expected Miller's vision, but we are all grateful.   I am impressed with the technical brilliance of the film. However, it was not what got me excited about the film to begin with. That, I attribute to the the overall positive feminist response.

MY TYPE OF INTERSECTION 

       Mad Max: Fury Road first came on my Sociological radar when I saw in the promotional material that the character of Furiosa was using a piece of assisted technology (a prosthetic/robotic arm) I was really excited to see how that was going to be portrayed in the film. In short,  I wasn't disappointed. Not only did I get a scene where Furiosa adeptly fights Max without the use of her prosthesis

 but I also became obsessed with the modified grip she uses to be able to shoot her rifle with her robotic arm.

While not expressly stated in the film, I like to think that this modification allowed her to be the only one who could use that rifle with any kind of accuracy. Please look to this great article for a more nuanced and in-depth discussion of disability in the Mad Max series.

      My Sociological interest deepened when I heard that Men's rights activists had called for a boycott of  the film, calling it Feminist Propaganda.

Before I move on, we must remember:

   These morons were worried that boys were being duped; that they paid for an action film (which in their minds was code for a masculine testosterone driven hyper reality that regulate women to eye candy and subjugation) where Max is the hero. Some have jeered " It's called Mad MAX for a reason!" Bare in mind that this the same non-logic that justifies homophobia with the mantra: "It's Adam and EVE  not Adam and STEVE!" They believe, as I mention in my discussion of The Rape Culture above, that boys will be emasculated if they watch one film where women are the focus.   What I would also like to point out to these idiots is that Max, as a character, hasn't been the star of the story since the original film. He, like a lot of main characters in Westerns, drifts in and out of towns and peoples lives, helping when and where he can. He is not the hero, he helps the hero. And in this film the hero is Furiosa. Plain and simple.
         Yet, in a way, we must thank these misguided and infuriating dirt bags. Because without their misplaced outrage, the film it would not have received its feminist support allowing more women to embrace the film (as all people should).  Due to this outpouring of support, (Hysterically the opposite of what was intended) Mad Max: Fury Road  is both a critical and commercial success.

THE DEBATE 

   Many prominent feminist and scholars have come out in support of Fury Road. Citing the female character development and overall lack of misogyny in the way women are being portrayed in the film. Each character is given a job to do and no one is damsel-ed or fridged, They also cite the way in which female strength is not only shown through typically masculine violent behavior, as with Furiosa and the Elderly bikers (characters that could be described as male characters in a female body), but also through sacrifice (Splendid using her pregnant body as a shield) and manipulation (Using the sexualization of women to bait a trap). A key scene that defines Mad Max :Fury Road as a feminist film for its supporters is when Max, recognizing Furiosa's skills with a rifle, hands the gun over to her at a crucial moment.

There is a gif for that:

This has even lead to a wonderful tumbler called Feminist Mad Max

   While this support is resounding and loud.  There are some in the feminist community that still see problems with the film. Instead of escaping patriarchy, they see its promotion.  They believe that regardless of the intention, the film reproduces patriarchy (through the way Imorten Joe treats women) and maintains the male gaze.

An Example:

      My interpretation is a bit of both. I do believe that Mad Max Fury Road is an amazing progressive film. The character of Furiosa stands on the shoulders of other great Sci-Fi characters like Elen Ripley and Sarah Connor but is even better because her motivation is not maternal. The film is also progressive because George Miller gives us more than one depiction of femininity that is valid and a atypical form of Masculinity that respects women.

This is a key Scene that shows Max as a Feminist ally. He says to Furiosa "Here is my idea, but it's your choice, You are the Leader."

               However,  I am also inclined to heavily criticize our culture that interprets any depiction of women outside of the usual sexist tropes as so novel, that it is chide as feminist. Feminism is not a dirty word, it is just trying to get our culture to see women as the complex humans they are, and push for diverse representation that has been monopolized by men in popular culture. It is depressing that we are still living in a society that views the notion that women are people as something radical.     

I leave you with this bit of Awesomeness:

Spider-Man, Deadpool, and The Legend of Korra: The Internet's Effect on Entertainment Content and Consumption

The invention and implementation of the internet, and the birth of social media has arguably had the greatest sociological impact since the Industrial Revolutions (1760-1850). For Sociology, and we humble Sociologists ( J), this is a pretty big deal. For it was the social change brought on, in part, by the Industrial Revolutions that lead to the coining of the term Sociology in 1838 by Sir Auguste Comte and the birth of Sociology as a discipline later in 1895 (Thank you Durkheim).  Therefore, I would argue that because the study of society was born from explaining Social change it is only fitting that we use Sociology to study the Social changes brought on by the Internet and Social media.  To that end, I will begin with a brief comparison between the changes brought on by the Industrial revolution and those we’ve experienced through the use of the internet. Yet, the main focus of this piece, given the theme and nature of this blog, will be on the shifting patterns of content creation and consumption we’ve experienced as a result of the changing media landscape using current pop cultural examples.

            The Industrial revolution(s) in a symbiotic and reciprocal relationship with the French Revolution of 1789 (Bastille Day, Reign of Terror) and (to a lesser extent) The American Revolution created a period of social change that transformed society from a pre-modern age into one of modernity.

  Components of Modernity:

-          -  Shift in the economic system. From a Barter Systems of trade, to Capitalism

-         -     New technologies emerged causing an increased focus on industry and production ( resulting in          hydro and steam power, textiles, steel, and increased transportation (sea trade))

-         -    Expansions in Medical Science leading to Population Growth (lower infant mortality)

-          -    Urbanization ( City boom; go where the jobs are)

-          -   Increase in Secularism

This shift was also important for those of us (Sociologists) that study Stratification (usually from a Power/Conflict or Critical Perspective) as it was this shift in social organization and institutionalization that was the beginning of so many forms of oppression and domination that we still see today. In fact, Some Classical Theorists believe, rightly so, that with the birth of Modernity we see the complex transformation of inequality to many forms of intersecting injustices.

Similarly, we see this type of Social change mirrored in the transitional changes from pre- internet age to a post internet age:

Paralleling effects of the Internet and Social media (Abbreviated):

-          Shift in the economic system: Online ordering, purchasing, distribution and banking. The existence and popularity of online currency ( Bit-coin)

-          New Technologies emerge: Social media changes the way we socially interact. 3-D printing, transportation by internet (video conferencing), online data storage, Physical space is less important

-          Increased access to medical records and communication with “providers” rapid test results and distribution of wellness care

-          Digitalization. We have online lives, personas, new notion of personal “branding”…every aspect of our lives is now marketable. Whatwould Marx say about this practice of commodifying ourselves?

-          Ironically, the online space has allowed for both the expansion of Secularism and the revitalization of belief at the same time. Even allowing fringe beliefs to gain support and prominence.

While there are obvious parallels between the change experienced by the industrial revolutions and those experienced with the implementation of the internet; what I am interested in, being both a Sociologist by trade, and a critic of popular culture by designJ, is the impact the “age of the internet” has on our creation and consumption of entertainment.    

            Let me first begin with consumption.  Since the implementation of the internet, the sheer volume of entertainment content has increased exponentially. Not only that, but now more content is available in many different forms (through many different platforms, devices and services). Before, where you may have received your entertainment content through a few different mechanisms ( TV, Radio, Concert/ event, Movies, Theater etc), now it is near limitless Thus, not only are we getting more (which can be attributed to and feed our fetishistic attitude) but we can consume this content in multiple ways (usually through hand held multi-media devices).

            One the most popular ways to consume nowadays is through entertainment streaming services. Pioneered by Netflix, these streaming services (that include Hulu and Amazon Prime as Netflix’s top competitors) allow (for a monthly fee) all access to enormous amounts of content. At first, this only included already produced/broadcasted material somewhere else (Usually in theaters, or on network or broadcast TV).  Now, these streaming services are producing their own original content exclusive for their subscribers becoming, in essence, the new “TV” networks.

 It is this new form of content distribution that greatly impacts media consumption behavior. Since these streaming services often release content all at once (including whole seasons, or in some cases the entire series run of a show), this has given rise to “binge watching” where consumers consume a large amount of content at one time.  This is not only a function of the immediate access through the internet but the desire to complete a particular story.

EX:  In comic book terms episodic consumption is the monthly single issue comic book, where as binge consumption is like having a graphic novel. An example of streaming services for comics would be The Marvel Unlimited App.

While there are many positives to this kind of consumption, (namely allowing for a diversification of content including the more esoteric variety to reach an audience and create a fan base) this also increases our desire for instant gratification to the point where we become content addicts.  Thus, when we have consumed all of the content a particular television program or movie has to offer we go through feelings of loss and withdrawal until more content is produced or distributed, or we latch on to another program (i.e. drug). Also, these states of entertainment distraction and gratification fuel both the Millsian idea of Private Orbits and the Weberian idea of “The Iron Cage”.

            However, what is really fascinating is the way that this new content consumption has actually effected the way content is created and distributed.  In many cases, online grassroots organizing has allowed programs to continue, flourish or be resurrected.

 An Aside: There is a whole other argument I may make in a future post about the lack of online social activism (sometimes referred to as “slacktivism” or “I-pod Liberalism”) for legitimate social causes while there is enormous outpouring of support and dejection anytime a television show may be canceled or new movie news is released.

Recently, there have been several examples where the release of content online, and the public response, has lead to a shift in industry focus.

Example 1: The Interview Controversy and positive and negative fallout of Sony Hack

The Film The Interview staring Seth Rogen and James Franco is a story about a talk show host that is recruited by the US government on a secret mission to kill Kim Jong-un. Because of its premise, The North Korean Government banned the film and sent death threats to its writers and stars.  Sony, fearing bad press and perhaps an international incident, initially pulled the film from theaters and released it online.  This had a two pronged effect. One, it over hyped a film that was (at least in the minds of critics) lackluster anyway and Two: it lead to the very explosive computer hack of Sony Pictures. While the North Korean government denies this, there have been many reports that implicate their involvement.

            Much of the inter-workings of Sony were released online including any potential deals that Sony was working on, namely a deal to share the character of Spider-man with Marvel and a lot of personnel information including bank accounts and social security information. Again what I find interesting is rather than focus on the tragedy of releasing personal information, much of the focus was on the Spider-Man deal.

            According to the leaked documents, the deal with Marvel/ Disney was talked about but then fell through. However, after the hack, what do we see, but Spider-man soon to be part of the MarvelCinematic Universe.  So the conclusion that one could draw is that the hack itself, leading to a Sony regime change, was the catalyst for the deal to actually get made. Which in part could give credence to Sony employees being involved in the hack. So the question is, what was the purpose of this hack? Was it punishment for the premise of The Interview and the Spider-man deal is making the best out of a bad situation? Or was it more deliberate? There is little data (outside of anecdotal evidence and wild speculation) that suggest the latter. However the next example is a little more direct.

Example 2: Deadpool Leaked Test footage

Since 2009’s disappointing portrayal of Wade Wilson/ Deadpool in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. There was always a solo Deadpool film in the works.  The buzz was big leading up to the film and after its initial release. However, news (and public interest) slowly died. Over the years, we would hear about the film in sound bites; That Ryan Reynolds was still attached, about how it had a script (written by the team behind Zombieland ), and how it had a director (Tim Miller).  But it looked like the studio was very non-committal about it being made. 

That is, until this test footage was “leaked” online

Now, The Deadpool film is in full production mode with a release date of Feb, 2016.  All involved accredit the green light to the leaked test footage and the enormously positive fan reaction that followed.  Not only could this be a direct example of how social media and the internet effect content creation, but this could be the function of the studio’s attempt to maintain social relevance in the public sphere.  This begs the question, if studios are desperate to have their finger on the pulse of popular and youth culture (which is nothing new) will we see a few more ideas getting green lit because of social media buzz that, most likely won’t pan out? (ala “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” or “Watchmen”).  There are though examples of content that is punished for their distribution.

Example 3  The Legend of Korra books 3 and 4

The Legend of Korra is the popular spin off and continuation of the Nickelodeon animation series Avatar: The Last Airbender created by Michael Dimartino and Brian Konietzko.  Both shows have a rabid fan base (see my review of Book 1), so much so that episodes of The Legend of Korra were leaked before the airing of the show’s third season.  This lead to (a continuation of) the mismanagement of the show by Nickelodeon (putting all of the episodes on Nick.com and pulling it from thebroadcast schedule) and slashing the budget for the show’s fourth and final season. This was as if the producers of the show, and by extension, the fans were being punished for their enthusiasm and consuming content in the normalized form of the new digital landscape.

            Finally, it has to be acknowledged that even though the United States is still the producers of the majority of this content, due to globalized Capitalism, Americans are now not the majority of its audience.  Because of the majority of film box office receipts are now acquired overseas (US domestic box officenumbers have been on a steady decline), production companies have now change release dates that reflect that. Now, movies made by US production companies are released in Europe and around the world, sometimes weeks or months before they premiere in the US.

           For all of these reasons we see a shift in both consumption and production of content in popular culture. Some of it is positive, we get more content, and greater diversity, much more of it is problematic (elevating the importance of entertainment over social problems and activism).  As the internet becomes less like the new frontier and is slowly brought under more regulation and control, I wonder how powerful these behaviors will still be. But until then, enjoy the independent gems, while being horrified by the creation of (as C. Wright Mills says) TheMass Society. One where both desire and consent are manufactured.

Rant

I just wanted to take a paragraph or so to rant about the content I consume in general.  I am starting to really enjoy what I call complete content. Content that has a particular story to tell and a particular direction.  One major component of that direction is a satisfying conclusion, an ending. Because there is this thirst for more (mentioned above) this forces a lot of stories to go on longer than they have the content or premise to sustain. When a show or program reaches this point it is commonly referred to as “Jumping the Shark”.  To me something only has value because it ends, the infinite continuation of story or material loses its value, because it becomes a constant. I do not need 10 seasons of a show or 4-5 film franchises, that is way too much. How many TV shows or films in their later seasons/installments are just as good as the beginning?

So here is my proposal:

   1)      The Rule of Three ( 3 films in a franchise only or 3 seasons of 22 episodes each)

    If you can’t tell your story in that amount of time start “trimming the fat”

   2)      Shorten episodic television to 12-13 episodes per season (an example of trimming the fat aka filler episodes)   

   3)      Follow the source material without being married to it. Conversely, fandom has to allow for some “dramatic license when dealing with any adaptation.

   4)      Create something new. New stories, and ideas. Do go back to the same well, Complete something      and then do something different.

   5)      Allow for more diversity. I don’t want to keep seeing the same white able-bodied male               protagonist.  There are other perspectives, find them, create them, use them.

End of Rant

The Films of Christopher Nolan: Interstellar

INTRODUCTION

              The 9th film in my continuing analysis of The Films of Christopher Nolan is the out-of-this-world epic Interstellar.  As expected, Christopher Nolan's newest film pushes the boundaries of both film-making and storytelling.  Interstellar is grand in scope but rooted in human emotions and personal relationships. It asks questions about the nature of humanity and what our role is in the cosmos; both in where we have been and where we want to go.  Yet, as with any Nolan film, there is both a lot to digest (in terms of spectacle) and mull over at film's end with little being explained.  This is because Nolan treats his audience with respect, assuming we are as clever as he is, and expecting us to keep up without having to be spoon-fed. Thus, even though I believe it to be Nolan's best work thus far (and certainly the most ambitious), for some, the movie has fallen flat. Yet, the mixed reaction from critics and fans have yet to diminish its current box office success. Hopefully, the film's massive run time (a whopping 169 min) will not buck the current trend and others will see as I did, that this is Nolan's finest hour.

Spoilers Ahead!!!!

   

" The World didn't run out of televisions or radios; it ran out of food.

We don't NEED engineers, we need Farmers."

PLOT

             In the near future, a plant disease known as "Blight" slowly kills all crops leaving only corn able to be produced.  With food running scarce, the world disbands the army and decommissions all weapons to focus on food production. Yet, as the human race gets sick due to the dust storms, and "Blight" beginning to attack their last sustainable crop, NASA (now a secret, privately funded organization) sends a team of Scientists and Engineers ( Mathew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Wes Bentley and David Gyasi) along with the last of the Marine robots, to find a new home for the human race in another galaxy.  Yet, as the dangers rise with betrayal at every turn and the human and ideological casualties mount, the remaining explorers have to decide if their mission to save humanity is worth risking the loss of their family (Michael Caine, Jessica Chastain, Casey Affleck, Mackenzie Foy, Timothee Chalamet, and John Lithgow) to time itself.  

      "We used to look up into the stars and wonder about our place in the Universe. Now, we look down and wonder about our place in the dirt." Cooper

       

THEMES 

      Theme 1: Humanity, Ecology, and Survival.

          One of the first big themes in Interstellar is the notion of humanity and how we are supposed to or think about our the value of our lives.  Nolan including the idea of famine and drought (going so far as to use stock footage of Ken Burn's Dust Bowl documentary to set the mood) pushes the notion of space exploration from excess to necessity.  Yet, even though this is clear to the audience, Nolan still allows for the debate to take place between Donald (John Lithgow) and Cooper (Mathew McConaughey). One arguing to make the best of what we have on earth, the other striving to find something better in the stars.
          One of the great aspects of this film, is that it is subtle while seeming overt. Nolan distracts you with the spectacle of the films scale and scope, meanwhile through dialogue he touches on deeper themes. In the film, it is not explicitly stated where "Blight" came from. It is not implausible to think  that it had its origins as a highly resistant pesticide that got out of control. Here then this could be a commentary on GMO's and the Monopoly of companies like Monsanto. Yet, Nolan is never definitive in this regard because he wants each viewer to have their own experience, thus maintaining wide appeal.  Other subtleties in the dialogue point to the extent of the ecological problem. Due to a lack of and reallocation of resources, the world's armies have been disbanded and all weapons decommissioned. In addition, federally imposed educational programs not only determine placement and assign future careers, but have altered history books to quell any dreams that reach beyond the earthbound necessities.
        The film also points to the vagaries of human survival.  Interstellar gives us those who are willing to altruistically fight for the Survival of Humanity, while we are introduced to others who are selfish looking to their own survival.  Yet, one of the most interesting commentaries in the film is the motivation for altruism is rooted in selfishness.  One character in the film expresses as much, identifying that the reason the Explorers are willing to be altruistic and save humanity is because they have individuals and personal relationships that they want to maintain.  The idea here is that we do not have the ability to think about humanity as a whole, and to care about it.  In order to get people to care about others, we need to personalize it with how it is going to affect them.  In the film, it is stated that we "evolutionarily haven't moved passed that point." Sociologically, this altruism is achieved by adopting the Sociological Imagination (more on this in part II).

Theme II Evolution

          The catalyst for the film's exquisite venture into space is the presence of a Wormhole that appeared 50 years prior to the start of the film. The explanation for this event was that it represented contact with alien life.  Only referred to as "They", throughout most of the film's story it is assumed that benevolent aliens are assisting humanity, pulling it away from the brink of extinction. As the film reaches its climax with one of its characters passing through a "gentle singularity" into a space/place where time is physical, it is revealed that "they" are, in reality, us. A higher form of humanity that has mastered gravity and therefore able to manipulate and travel through time as a physical space.  Here Nolan is not only making a commentary on the direction of  Evolution but also invoking the notion of human self reliance.  As if to say "Oh the things we can achieve if given the chance.".

Theme III: Love 

           For all of this film's technical brilliance, rooted in the real science of Astro-physics (confirmed by Neal Degrasse Tyson) the film is about emotion, especially the driving power of love. This is interesting given Nolan's reputation of being "cold" or devoid of emotion.  Anyone who believes Nolan to still be a "cold" filmmaker needs to see this film.  This is a story about relationships and its power to motivate. While a number of realtionships are explored, the primary relationship between Cooper (Mathew McConaughey) and his daughter (Mackenzie Foy). We see their bond over all things "sciencey" especially the scientific method. This is illustrated  when Cooper tells his daughter to think about her "poltergeist"rationally using observable data to come to a conclusion ( :) ). It is their bond and relationship that is integral to the mission that Cooper embarks on, and its success.  Yet, nowhere is the focus and the power of love more apparent than in a speech by Brand (Anne Hathaway) that posits love as almost a cosmic force (like gravity) pulling people together, or driving people toward something.

PRODUCTION

       The film that would be Interstellar began with a script written by Jonathon Nolan to be directed by Stephen Spielberg.  When Spielberg dropped out, Christopher Nolan and his brother reworked the script and set Christopher Nolan to direct.  With that, most of Team Nolan was reassembled for this latest venture. Noticeably absent was Cinematographer extraordinaire Wally Pfister who was busy working on (the disappointing) Transcendence. Enter Hoyte Van Hoytema of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy. fame. His distinct visuals and earthy tones are felt throughout the film but no clearer than in the film's first act.  He seems to add a feeling of grittiness to Nolan's pallet in a film that is as much about earth as it is about space.
       Shot on 35mm film and 70 mm IMAX film the detail in every shot is so crisp that the visuals jump off the page.  On film, we get to see all of the detail that is missed with a digital presentation and/or a digital intermediary (conversion done digitally as opposed to photo-chemically)This photo realism was so important to Team Nolan that one article detailing the films production shows what drastic measures they were willing to take.  These risks included strapping a highly expensive IMAX camera to the nose of a Learjet in order to get a sweeping aerial shots and actors getting hypothermia due to shooting in Iceland. Hoyte Van Hoytema even retooled the IMAX camera, making it handheld  to be used in tight corners when they were filming on sound stages and other close quarters.
        Nolan's technique and technical prowess are in full form here.  Not since Inception have we been treated to Nolan's complete freedom in production.  It was this freedom that allowed Nolan to ground this Sci-Fi epic in realism he hired Astrophysicist Kip Thorne to work with the visual effects team to make sure they were as scientifically accurate as possible. In fact, the work that Kip Thorne did with the FX team actually lead to new scientific discoveries  about Black Holes. Also, this experience has prompted Kip Thorne to write a book detailing the science we see in the film.

     Since this is not only a Sci-Fi epic but a Christopher Nolan Sci-fi film. There are some "Nolanism" that were present in Interstellar that I hunted down like a scavenger though my initial viewings of the film:

    

    1) The opening titles or title sequence has different meaning for the audience at the begining than it

        does at the end...usually a deeper, richer meaning.

    2) The Film's plot is based on a lie.

    3) There is a lot of planning and build up in the film that all gets turned on its head.

    4) Character's trust, and misjudge other characters, usually with disastrous results.

    5)  Non-linear storytelling (in this film even that gets folded in on itself)

    6) The inclusion of Michael Caine

INITIAL THOUGHTS AND CONCLUSION

          I am blown away by this film. It was the most epic and exhilarating time at the movies I have had in recent memory...but that should come at no surprise to anyone who reads this blog, least of all myself. In the aftermath of such a transcendental experience, I do not know where this film goes in the pantheon of Nolan films.  As I have mentioned before, The Dark Knight Trilogy is in a class by itself.  Therefore the question I have been wrestling with is whether Interstellar is better than Inception?    I have heard a quote from Nolan saying that Interstellar is a "sister piece" to Inception (in that was one goes deep to explore the mind the other reaches far beyond to explore space).  Right now at the time of this writing I would have to say yes. With  Interstellar, I believe Nolan has summarily topped himself, and every other Sci- fi epic past Gravity and on the level with 2001: A Space Odessey...though I did like Interstellar better.

Final Note: SEE THIS FILM IN 70MM IMAX FILM. The color is richer (the blacks are blacker) and the sheer quality of the presentation will blow you away. Buy Tickets NOW!!!