Gender Representation in Disney's 'Frozen' and Hollywood's "girl" problem.

         Last week I saw Disney's Frozen.  My initial reaction: it could have been worse.  As a Sociologist that studies gender, particularly gender representation in media ( even more specifically in film and TV).  I have had a problem with Disney's "girl" problem.  Consistently, Disney's representation of women (especially during their "Renaissance" in the late 1980's early 1990's) and the gendered messages they present to little girls have reinforced gender stereotypes and promoted dangerous relationship behavior; whether that be the promotion of body modification (i.e. plastic surgery), encouraging girls to stay with emotionally abusive kidnappers (because they'll be able to change them), being sexually passive, having no sexual agency, elitism,  sexualization (the exotic stereotype), Masculinization (reinforcement of the binary) and superficiality. Disney has been the source of gender stereotypes and maintenance of polarizing gendered expectations for over half a century. Every so often, they (Disney) would subtly and artfully repackaging these messages to fit the current target of potential consumers.  Recently however, with films like Brave, Wreck-It-Ralph, and Frozen it seems Disney is attempting to present girls ( and girl's stories) with the depth and complexity that they deserve.  While this is a step in the right direction (Brave and  Frozen being the most divergent from the "classic" Disney model), Frozen still falls into a few of the old traps and also creates new ones that set a dangerous precedent moving forward.  

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!

Trying to Right the Ship.

       The central relationship in Frozen is between two sisters.  As with the mother/daughter relationship in Brave, this film eliminates the necessity to have a love interest (that is always male) which usually culminates into the tired princess trope of "damsel in distress". While there is a potential romantic partner for one of the sisters in Frozen, that is not the main focus of the film.  In fact,throughout the film, Disney seems to be poking fun at itself as it challenges the" love at first sight" trope meanwhile, cashing in on the audiences expectation that "true love" comes only in the form of romantic heterosexual monogamy.The "true love" in Frozen is platonic sisterly love; a welcomed change of pace for Disney. 

       With Frozen, Brave (and to a lesser extent Wreck-it Ralph) we are finally getting a handful of Disney female protagonists that do not have to be in a relationship or be married in order to be considered complete or live "happily ever after". These changes are necessary in order to display the female characters (in Disney films) as far more three dimensional than its predecessors as well as represent the cultural shift that gives and maintains female social agency.  While it is important to encourage Disney to maintain this current trajectory, it is important to understand context.  Female autonomy and agency in Disney animated films is in its infancy (beginning only in 2012) while award-winning animation directors like Hayao Miyazaki have pioneered and championed such ideals since 1974. I don't think Disney should be praised for being late to the party (nearly 40 years late).  Quite the contrary, their prolonged reluctance to embrace egalitarian ideals should change the outlook on the aforementioned films as outliers, exceptions, rather than the new rule.  

New (old) Traps 

     As structurally progressive as Frozen's story might seem, it still falls into a few old gender traps. The main gender trap that Frozen  falls into is female representation; both in the way that female character's are drawn and how they are portrayed.  Firstly, the women in Frozen are drawn out of proportion.  The eyes of the characters are bigger than their wrist. Drawing female characters with big eyes has been used in other types of animation (typically anime) to represent youth and innocence that borders on child-like ignorance.  In fact, if you look at the newer films like Brave, Frozen and Wreck-It Ralph the majority of female characters have larger eyes than their male counterparts, repackaging the idea that women are more innocent and childlike.  

      Secondly,  the character of the Ice Queen and her powers is an allegory to how women are treated and controlled in our culture.  As a child, she is portrayed as being out of control (with her powers) a label that is often applied to women in our culture who are different or speak out or speak up.  She is then locked away from the outside world, seen as a danger to herself and to others.  Women constantly get this message that the world outside is a scary place and they need to be protected from it (usually by men) or protect themselves through isolation (not going to bars and club, changing their behaviors) because, if not, they are often blamed for their own victimization. 

   Finally, once the Ice Queen in Frozen  is starting to control her powers and gain confidence in her self and her abilities she is almost immediately given a new (more sexy) dress and is drawn moving in a more sensual manner with long strides and swaying hips.  While this could be an analogy to the direct and positive correlation between sexual agency and confidence, it comes off as an unnecessary sexualization, that now a woman has power, she must be objectified. This is a common tactic by the media, controlling women's bodies and controlling women through their bodies.

    About half way though my viewing of the film I tested the films "progressiveness" by gender swapping the roles.  I asked myself, if the sisters were two brothers, would they be treated the same?  The answer...NO. If the Ice Queen was a boy, he would  have been trained to hone is powers and his skills (most likely through the typical "hero's journey) and in the end he would have redeemed himself in the eyes of his people by defeating a snow wizard or beast etc).  However, not only does this film fall into some old gender traps, it also adds to a growing problem in  gender representation that can have disastrous consequences.

A Dangerous Precedent

  Frozen, along with Brave are a part of a growing subtle form of sexism that is going undetected by both the casual observer and the scholar. 

   "Have it all" Sexism is a term that refers to a new type of sexist female representation in the media that requires female characters that are shown to have careers (with varying degrees of power), agency and  autonomy or who are being portrayed as physically strong, and strong willed, must also identify (or in some cases learn to identify) with traditional female gender norms and scripts.  The message is that it is OK for girls to have agency and social power in our society as long as they don't forget that they also have to be wives and mothers (i.e. sex objects and reproductive vessels.) This maintains the value of women to be in their body, and their representation as full and complete human beings is a distant second. One of the best examples of this is in Brave where Marida is allowed to be a warrior as long as she is also a lady. This "noble lady" motif is also used in Frozen.  Being a lady, is usually translated in these films as maintaining cis (traditional, binary specific) gender norms. Therefore, you see Marida in Brave and the sisters in Frozen doing a lot of action and adventuring while still wearing a dress, heels and make-up...emphasizing that even though they may be engaging in typically masculine activities, they haven't lost their femininity.  We see this with Superheros all of the time: from Catwoman's heels in The Dark Knight Rises to Katniss Everdeen's Wedding dress in Catching Fire.  "Have it all" sexism makes sure that we don't forget that "strong women" are also "ladies". This creates a frustrating double bind for women that is paralleled in what Arline Hochschild calls "the second shift": the idea that while women can have careers, they are still primarily responsible for all child care and domestic work...Thus women can be complex and diverse as long as they maintain societal cultural stereotypes.

    We are starting to see more and more evidence of "have it all" sexism and its effects. From a manufactured crisis of women losing domestic skills, to more professional women feeling the desire to maintain domestic activities (cooking baking and sewing) to cope with the stress of their careers; the validation of women is still only through one particular lens...their value to others rather than the value to themselves.

   A much more scary outcome of this "have it all" Sexism is how it relates to sexual violence. Because women are gaining more power and agency it is being framed in our culture as taking that power away from boys and men.  The most mild response to this ( female agency) is a manufactured boy crisis where boys and men become the only demographic that matters.  This is perfectly illustrated by the titles of films like Tangled (the story of Rapunzel) and Frozen ( the story of the Ice Queen).  The titles of the films were changed from the source material because Disney didn't want to alienate their "boy market" with a story that was so blatantly about girls.  The most extreme response to this (female agency) is the use of sexual violence and humiliation (revenge porn, street harassment, rape etc.) as a way for boys to "take back the power" from these women who have emasculated them.  Thus, in this context, rape and sexual violence is rationalized and justified as a pathway to regaining masculinity.

   More needs to be written about "have-it all" sexism and we need to be more vigilant in identifying the examples and the sources of this growing problem. 

The Films of Christopher Nolan: Memento

        The second film in my in-depth analysis of the the films of Christopher Nolan.  Is the engrossing twisting thriller Memento.  With such a riveting and complex story as Following ( Nolan's first film) one might think that Christopher Nolan would fall into a sophomore slump, relying on some of the same plot devices and story telling gimmicks that were in his first film.  However, with Memento, Nolan proves that he can consistently create an engaging film experience, one that changes with each additional viewing. 
       The plot of the film is deceptively simple.  A man, Leonard (Guy Pierce) is trying to track down the men responsible for the rape and murder of his wife. He is aided in this quest by Teddy ( Joe Pantoliano) and Natalie ( Carrie- Anne Moss). However there are a few plot devices that make this simple story into a serpentine labyrinth of  manipulation, double-crosses, and a questioning of reality.

"Do I lie to myself to be happy?" Leonard  

         

         The first plot device that Nolan uses that elevates the film to something extraordinary is Leonard's state of mind.  Ever since the attack on his wife, Leonard has been diagnosed with anterograde amnesia . Simply put,  Leonard has short term memory loss; he can't make new memories.  Throughout the film he has to rely on pictures ( and other "mementos") and his own hand written notes to fit the pieces of the puzzle (that is his life) together.  As the film progresses, Nolan illustrates just how fragile our memory can be by showing how these things can be manipulated to alter Leonard's behavior and his understanding of the world around him.   Leonard's story then becomes Nolan's allegory to how dependent memory is on interpretation and context.  This idea is rooted in Sociology, specifically in the theoretical framework of Social Constructionism.

" What is real, is real in its consequences."



           Introduced in the United States by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann in the book entitled The Social Construction of Reality, Social constructionism understands that our knowledge (and by extension our very reality) is based upon a set of social conditions that are interpreted by individuals.  If those interpretations are collectively understood by a group of people they become "real" to that group.  Everyday behavior, as well as complex moral and philosophical ideas of good and evil, right and wrong, are all socially constructed and context dependent.  What is good and moral in one part of the world at one particular point in history, may be immoral and wrong in another part at another time.  The only reason anything has meaning is because it is given meaning by individuals. Once that is established, that meaning needs to be agreed upon and passed down to the next generation through the process of social learning known as socialization. At that point, reality is constructed.  Nolan shows the audience how easy this constructed knowledge can be altered and thereby change our perceptions of the world and our actions within it.  With that, Nolan forces the audience to take on the Sociological perspective in examining their own life in how dependent we are on our own perceptions.  This plays on a common question: "Would I have made the same decision ( or acted differently) if I would have more (or less) information?" While in our world hindsight is 20/20; in Nolan's story there is no hindsight, there is only the present, only the reality that Leonard is actively creating.  At the film's climax the audience realizes the dangers of this unchecked social construction due to a lack of self reflection (or in Leonard's case, an inability to be self reflexive).

            The second plot device that makes Memento an extraordinary film is Nolan's used of a reverse chronology storytelling.  With a few rewound shots in the beginning of the film, Nolan cements in the audiences mind that the events of the film are happening in reverse order.  Helped by overlapping the end and beginning of a particular scene the audience is not only trying to understand the story, but they are piecing the plot and character's together along with Leonard as if they were in Leonard's mind.  This device allows for thrilling character reveals and plot twist that would be seen as boring and predicable if told in a linear fashion.  I would go so far as to say the film only works because of this device.  It takes a clear picture and turns it into a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces.  In fact, the only reason the audience can be "self reflexive" as previously mentioned, is because they have gone on this journey with Leonard and unlike him, they carry the weight and consequences of his actions...something that he can never do.
             Memento is the film that brought Christopher Nolan to the attention of the mainstream.  It was a huge critical success and opened a lot of doors for him to make a lot of his subsequent work. This film was so lauded by critics that there are many who believe that this is where he peaked, and all of his other films are pale imitations of this success.  I disagree.
           While I believe this film to be brilliant and sociologically relevant, it only serves as a taste of Nolan's capabilities as a writer and a director.  While there are similarities between Memento and the rest of Nolan's work in  tone, and theme they are not the same film because he asks different questions about the human condition and our capacity to understand both ourselves and the social world around us.  That, in part, is what makes him great.

Gal Gadot and The Wonder Woman Conundrum

              
                     Gal Gadot has just been cast in the increasingly bloated Man of Steel sequel now (not so) affectionately referred to as "Batman vs. Superman".  I had mentioned in a previous post  that I thought Warner Bros (WB) was doing Superman (and Batman) a disservice by putting them in the same film for (what appears to be) purely financial reasons. The addition of Wonder Woman (and Rumors of Barry Allen aka The Flash) in this film is proof that the WB is slowly transforming the Man of Steel sequel into a Justice League film without build up through solo film franchises (AKA the Marvel method) to develop the character(s).  This method may have worked if there was some semblance of a plan in its inception. Yet, the more information that is released about the film's development, the more fans get the sense that they (the studio, Snyder and Goyer) are cobbling ideas together with dangerously weak plot threads (e.g. Wonder Woman is going to be a love interest for Bruce Wayne and her origins may be tied to ancient Kryptonians). Wonder Woman, Amazonian Princess (and now the God of War) deserves better than that.
               Psychologist William Moulton Marston is credited as Wonder Woman's creator (even though it was Marston's wife and assistant that were the more than instrumental in the process) in 1941.  The third Superhero in history, behind Superman (1938) and Batman (1939), Wonder Woman rounds out DC comics Holy Trinity. She is that important to our modern mythology.

           While Superman and Batman have had 12 live action films, three live action TV shows, 5 animated TV shows and 5 animated movies combined, the question then remains: Why hasn't Wonder Woman received the same treatment? While in recent years there have been several attempts to get live action Wonder Woman projects off the ground (including a treatment written by Joss Whedon years before Avengers); she has shown up in several ensemble (Justice League) animated films and one solo animated film (that I have problems with). However, we are still clinging to a beloved (but short lived) TV show from the 1970's; even though Wonder Woman's defining moment came years before, when she graced the cover of MS. Magazine in 1963. At that moment, Wonder Woman became known more so as a cultural icon than a superhero. No matter how nostalgic, the public perception of Wonder Woman does not embody the brilliant battle hardened but compassionate warrior I've come to know and love from the comics (no offense to Linda Carter).
           Any attempt to do something different with the character, to bring her public image more in line with her comic counterpart is routinely met with opposition.  The recurring excuses that are often invoked is that "Wonder Woman is difficult." [Yeah, because a story about the bravest and most courageous person coming from a warrior culture whom is the child of a GOD is so difficult that it hasn't been done a thousand times over with a male lead. Hell, her original origin story parallels Adam's birth from the Bible.] Whenever, another attempt fails the response is always the same "We want to make sure we get her right."  These "storylines are all subtle deflections from the simple reality of a clear gender bias in Superhero Cinema.
          Like Pornography, most superhero films are created by, marketed to, and star boys and men.  Therefore, these films seem to only have one narrowed world view ( a point of view that isn't shared by even a majority of men, but that is a separate post in and of itself).  This vision is one that sees women as objects or eye candy who become interesting only when they are in an ensemble and usually tasked with "helping men",(Black Widow in The Avengers) or they fall victim to the "Women in Refrigerators" trope ( Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight ).  The reason why Wonder Woman is "difficult" is because she does not fit into this narrow point of view; she obliterates it.
         Wonder Woman embodies all of the wonderfully complex positive traits of humanity in the same way as Superman.  She is both physically strong, and strong in character. She is the warrior, and the compassionate social crusader.  She protects innocence, and deals swift justice to her enemies.  She is not afraid to kill, but she does not do it haphazardly or without remorse. Also, regardless of how she is usually depicted, she is a person of color (her heritage is from a fabled Greek island known as Themyscira). This is an empowering image beyond the patriarchal bombardment women usually get that places value strictly in their bodies (both as a sex object and a vessel for the next generation). An image that is unfortunately tempered and controlled in the comics by sexualizing her and placing her in compromising positions (the comic book industry is also driven by men and therefore all female characters get the male gaze treatment).
         One of the biggest examples of the male gaze is Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch.  Now he has control of Wonder Woman, and I am afraid.  I have not heard of Gal Gadot before this announcement.  Yet, her credentials and filmography suggest that she was chosen because she fits the aforementioned patriarchal criteria. I do not have a problem with her, I have a problem with the hurried and seemingly superficial process that cast her.  Also, while I do not promote body shame, Gal Gadot seems to be predisposed to be a thinner and smaller woman and Wonder Woman is neither. It will be interesting to see if she is going to be required to "bulk" up in same way Henry Cavil did for Superman or as Ben Affleck is doing for Batman.  I am skeptical that she will be asked to put on too much muscle out of fear of losing sex appeal.
             My personal choice for Wonder Woman is Gina Carano.  I believe she has the screen gravitas and presence that Wonder Woman needs to have and while she is still green as far as acting I think she has potential.  She is certainly as warrior, proven in this clip from the film Haywire.

          In the end, The lack of Wonder Woman content, is not because producers and other executives don't see it as lucrative, its because the character of Wonder Woman doesn't fit their fabricated facsimile of a female that is often trotted out as if they were fulfilling a quota.  Wonder Woman is empowerment, regardless of how she is continually silenced through comics and other media.

If You are interested in great Wonder Woman Content read:
 Wonder Woman: The Hiketeia by Greg Rucka
Wonder Woman: The Circle and Ends of the Earth by Gail Simone
 Wonder Woman Monthly title by Brian Azzarello

I will end this post with a great Wonder Woman clip from the animated film Superman/Batman Apocalypse

"Thor: The Dark World" Movie Review

       
Introduction

     Thor: The Dark World is the Second solo film for Marvel's Norse God of Thunder. This is also the second solo film in Marvel's Planned "Phase 2" post The Avengers, (the first film being the disappointing Iron Man 3) that will ultimately culminate in Avengers 2: The Age of Ultron. Marvel, supported by its parent company, Disney; is anything if not ambitious.  They have plans for even a "Phase 3" prepping films well past 2020. However, with all of these grand plans and the precedent set by The Avengers' box office returns, Thor: The Dark World (and to a greater extent Iron Man 3) becomes a victim of an increasingly complex Marvel Cinematic Universe and slave to a mainstream public who's tastes and attention are often finicky and shallow.  Having to satisfy these two masters not only limits the individual filmmakers ability to tell a story, but it also produces a product that regardless of acting, appeals to the lowest common denominator.

The Plot

      After a long opening with the epic flavor of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Thor: The Dark World picks up directly after events of The Avengers as the prisoner Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is brought before his adoptive parents Frigga (Rene Russo) and Odin (Anthony Hopkins).  He is sentenced to imprisonment for his attack on Midgard (Earth). Meanwhile, we follow Thor (Chris Hemsworth) as he brings order to the Nine Realms while still pining for mortal, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman).  Jane's actions in London while continuing her research, cause the resurrection of one of the enemies of Asgard: The Dark Elves lead by the sinister Malekith (Christopher Ecceleston) who seeks to cover all the Nine Realms in endless darkness during the convergence (a point where all nine realms are in alignment).  Desperate, and pained by a recent tragedy, Thor eventually has no choice but to free Loki (in an act of treason) in order to stop Malekith's plan.

Analysis        Fair Warning: Spoilers ahead.

       Director Alan Taylor and Screenwriters Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus and Steven McFeely are successful in making an entertaining film.  However that entertainment is both shallow and fleeting.  After the credits rolled I was left with a profound sense of disappointment even though I believed that I had enjoyed the film as I was watching it. This dissonance was so powerful that I could not properly articulate it until hours later. This is a result of the aforementioned pandering to mainstream public interests that cause the film to be clouded by muddled references and illusions to previous films while sacrificing strong character drama for unnecessary comedic tension breaks. This is a major fallout of the commercial success and popularity of The Avengers
       Each Marvel superhero film leading up to The Avengers  (aside from Iron Man 2) were stand alone films with common threads linking the films in subtle ways.  Because the very idea of a "team up" film at the time was a pipedream for a lot of creators (as well as fans) these solo films had to work without relying on any kind of shared continuity. This made them better films.  Any additional references to other characters, in other places, were seen as "Easter eggs" to fans given by the filmmakers.  They were allowed to take their time, developing characters and crafting stories that were interesting and not just entertaining. Unfortunately, the gargantuan success of The Avengers has  lead Marvel to try and capitalize on the success of the film through references to the shared universe  ( Thor: The Dark World has several glaring allusions) which muddle the tone of the two solo film sequels post Avengers.  Not only have there been reports of filmmakers being creatively hamstrung by Marvel executives (such as Shane Black in Iron Man 3), but both post Avengers films have invoked Joss Whedon's quippy, one-liner, referential and sardonic dialogue which became overused by Tony Stark  in Iron Man 3 and cringe inducing in Thor: The Dark World. 
      An perfect example of the problems of tone and timing in Thor: The Dark World is during the final fight in London. The action is broken up (often at odd moments) to insert some unnecessary levity and in jokes to the audience.  This is glaringly obvious when during the fight, Malekith and Thor get separated and Thor has  to take a subway train back to the battle. If that wasn't enough, while riding on the train, a female passenger "accidentally" brushes up against Thor to feel his (ridiculously) muscled body.  This scene is unnecessary, and acts as an in joke to the audience commenting on how sexually attractive Chris Hemsworth is as Thor.
      As an aside, sociologically, I have to wonder if the filmmakers are aware of the constant threat of sexual harassment that women face on subways from men behaving in the same way the female passenger was toward Thor.  Gender swapping the offender and victim does not make the behavior not harassment, nor is it some kind of equality (women do it to men too!).
     While I am on the subject of gender, I have to say do I commend the film for progressing the Darcy/Jane relationship not only to pass the Bachdel test, to one of genuine friendship. Also, I enjoyed the fleshing out the character of Jane Foster beyond a damsel, proving her to be a brilliant scientist. One of the best character moments for Jane that displays this development is when she is being examined by healers on Asgard.  Throughout the entire procedure, Jane is asking questions and Portman's performance really conveys the utter geek out Jane is feeling being surrounded by such advanced science and technology.  It was a small but good character moment that shows girls should be unapologetically into math and science; something they often get socialized away from or shamed out of.  However, even though we have this progress, the character of Frigga is still used as the stereotypical trope "women in refrigerators" when she is killed off to advance the character progression of her sons Thor and Loki.
       Irregardless, Tom Hiddleston's Loki made the film stand out.  He, like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, has done everything possible to embrace the character and the fans. From an impromptu appearance in Hall H during this year's San Diego Comic-con, to reading children's books to a group of students as Loki in full regalia, Hiddleston embraces Loki and the love that people show for him.  Hiddleston, in his three portrayals of Loki, has made Loki his own.  He plays Loki so charming that even though you know Loki is a trickster and betrays everyone for his own gain, Hiddleston is so earnest, you are still surprised.  Some of Hiddleston's best moments are in his conversations with Thor.  This the first film, where I truly saw their genuine affection for each other. Putting aside the lies, deceit and treachery of Loki, the performances made me believe these brothers still love each other.

Final Thoughts

I do not know where to lay the blame of the failings of this film.  My instinct (and bias) is to blame the mechanism that is Disney. Although, it is most likely Marvel, with Disney just bankrolling them. It seems like Marvel/Disney is so preoccupied with completing their vision they are willing to sacrifice creativity, and good storytelling because they want everything to be interconnected; which they interpret as everything be similar. Those similarities are unfortunately coming from a profit motive perspective rather than one of story and character quality.  It also bares mentioning that ever since this partnership between Disney and Marvel took place, the Marvel films have become increasingly more fun, bordering on farce. Just as all characters don't need to be dark and brooding like Batman to be taken seriously, they all don't have to be full of quirky humor and snarky one-liners like Tony Stark. Unfortunately, however, this is what has proven to be successful for Marvel/Disney and will continue until it isn't anymore.  The danger is that this type of fun tone can easily lead down the road to camp.  If Disney/Marvel aren't careful the audience may turn from laughing with their jokes, to laughing at them as a joke.  For one who loves Superhero cinema, I hope that doesn't happen. I guess we will wait and see if Captain America: Winter Soldier is the political thriller it is touting to be and whether Guardians of the Galaxy will be Marvel's much needed space opera.

The Films of Christopher Nolan: Following

         The first film in my comprehensive analysis of The Films of Christopher Nolan is the independent neo-noir (soon to be) classic Following.  Nolan's first film is the epitome of independent cinema. With a budget of less than $0, this film was shot around London (without permits) in the homes of the cast and crew. The principle photography took over a year to shoot because they could only shoot for several hours on the weekends. Despite the films modest beginnings, it is a wonderful window into Nolan's potential as a filmmaker and a storyteller. Even if he is, in this film at least, a little rough around the edges.
          Following's plot revolves around Bill (Jeremy Theobald), an impoverished, down on his luck writer with a penchant for stalking and voyeurism.  He is fascinated with people and decides to start following those that he sees in public.  He does not talk to them he just "wants to see where they go." This seemingly innocent, (albeit creepy) pastime satisfies Bill for a while; until he meets a burglar named Cobb (Alex Haw).  A person for whom Bill breaks his cardinal rule: never follow the same person twice.  If I describe any more of the plot it would do the film a disservice.  What follows though is a noir thriller with plot twists and reveals that upon multiple viewings, changes the film's plot and character motivations.
       If I could sum up this film in a single word, it would be potential.  Even in this, his first feature length film, Nolan proves that he is a master craftsman. We get a glimpse of a film style and structure that would become synonymous with the director's name.  One such stylistic "Nolan technique" used here is the non-linear story structure.  Not suitable for all films (I am looking at you Man of Steel), the non linear structure, when done right, enhances the experience of the film.  In Following,  the non-linear structure turns what would have been a predictable thriller into a complex web of deceit and double crosses.  Jumping forward and back effortlessly, the film keeps the audience guessing regarding character motivations and conversational context.  In the director's commentary for this film (one of the few Nolan has ever done) Nolan explains his affinity for this type of storytelling " I want to create films in which, upon repeat viewings, the audience gets a different experience.". This is especially true of Following, in which Nolan repeats a number of different images including similar shots of characters throughout the film. However, because he uses alternate takes, these same images still seem fresh. 
      While Nolan's more recent films have been epic in scale (not only in production size but in length: The Dark Knight Rises clocked in at whopping 165 min) Following is tight and economical.  With a run time of just over 70 min, the script and finished film has no wasted scenes, and the dialogue is meaningful and crisp (the blessing of a low budget independent film).  Because of the economical tone, a lot of the story takes place off camera.  We, as the audience, are only privy to the scenes of utmost importance and still we feel a connection to these characters.  This tone continued in the lighting with Nolan choosing to shoot in black and white (to maintain the Noir feel), and to only use natural lighting.  It was this type of Guerrilla-style filmmaking that made Nolan a hot up and comer among Hollywood's Indie elite.
    The film's inception came out of Nolan's sociological curiosity.  As he would watch people in crowds  he would wonder about their lives: where they were going, what they were doing etc. It is this conceptual framework (the basis of the script) that lends Following to be mined for rich sociological analysis.  The protagonist, Bill, at the beginning of the film has the type of social curiosity that sociologist Peter Berger said is a necessary requirement for a anyone studying Sociology.  Yet, that curiosity can not be easily satisfied, an individual must look deeper, and be critical of the information that they receive.  A drive that leads Bill into Cobb's web.
     In the film, Cobb's motivation for being a burglar is heavy with social commentary to the point of almost waxing poetic. Explaining this to Bill, Cobb mentions "that you can tell a lot about someone by the stuff they have." This comment echoes the work of  Classical Social Theorists Thorstein Veblen (Conspicuous Consumption) and Karl Marx (Commodity Fetishism). Veblen and Marx, (in two different approaches) identify the way an individual's social and self identity is wrapped up in material goods. These material goods become the a primary way we represent/present our power and status in society.  Through the acquisition of "stuff", we create and maintain a self image that we present to those around us.  As an example: a person who wears designer clothes to give off the impression that they are wealthy, even though they bought the clothes 1/2 off at a swap meet, or thrift store.  This commodified identity is exacerbated by marketing which manufactures emotional connections to physical objects among consumers resulting in the rapid increase of the storage industry and creating a culture of hoarders.   In Following, Cobb alludes to this idea. He states: "I take their stuff away, to show them what they had...All of a sudden, they have to go through all of the stuff they lost and REALLY think about what its worth, and whether or not they need it."  The film also drives home the point that everyone, has physical keepsakes that represent who we are, mementos that say something about us beyond any words can describe.  This is quintessential social theorizing of identity creation and maintenance, and I marvel at how seamlessly it fits into the narrative Nolan creates.
   This is by far Nolan's most underrated film to date.  It being his first film, it has no star power or directorial clout.  Irregardless, the film stands on its own, as a  gritty and complex thriller with a dash of social commentary.  While many look to Memento as the film that made Christopher Nolan a star on the rise, Following is the ladder that started the ascension, and should not be over looked.

Miley Cyrus, Sexual Agency and the Problem of Cultural Appropriation

        
         Those who adopt the sociological perspective often are able to look upon their own culture and have moments of culture shock. I had one when I saw the video of Miley Cyrus' performance at MTV's Video Music Awards (VMA), but that was not a surprise (pun intended).  The surprise was that, in the aftermath,  much of the criticism of this performance got it wrong.
       Through blog posts, and op-ed pieces, to news articles and internet memes, the overall commentary surrounding this event placed the blame (and its vitriol) solely at the feet of Miley Cyrus, while only highlighting the overtly sexual nature of her performance. The internet exploded with slut-shaming rhetoric, the evocation of gender double standards, and humiliating hate-speech.  However, what was more telling, was how (relatively) quiet it was for any commentary about race. Particularly, how the cultural appropriation of blackness (particularly black female sexuality) is used as a mechanism to achieve an adult white female sexual identity.   Miley Cyrus achieved that end not only through "twerking" and feigning masturbation, but also through the simulated analingus, and spanking of black female bodies. Cyrus used these women as her props in order to, once and for all, shed the ever-so present image of Hanna Montana thereby granting her sexual agency.  Unfortunately, the previously mentioned articles focused more on the product of Cyrus' sexualized reinvention (continuing the tradition of punishing women for their sexuality)  rather than the process that created it.*
          Miley Cyrus' process begins with Disney, and being a child star.  Our culture fetishizes children in the public consciousness, and Disney is the king.  Children (usually girls) are routinely paraded around as paragons of innocence, virtue, and goodness (e.g. princess culture).  Therefore, since sex has always been seen as a deviant act of defilement for women, virginity is used as the instrument by which innocence is judged.  The most recent manifestation of this is purity pledges and purity rings.  I can not fathom the asphyxiating repression of a natural sexual curiosity which Disney must apply to its stars in order to maintain the family friendly image.  Yet, when these stars are "of age" they are cut loose; struggling to find their own identity as an adult...alone.  This is a daunting task for anyone, add to that the pressure of overcoming the immortalization of a child star's image, and it becomes insurmountable.  Cyrus was always set up to fail, because she couldn't stay a child forever.
         As an adult, Miley Cyrus has a right to her sexuality, and her body.  She is free to cultivate her sexual identity through whatever form of expression best suits her. That kind of ownership of one's self is powerful and builds confidence and self esteem.  Nevertheless, her VMA performance as an example, Cyrus' attempt at developing such an identity falls into a lot of gender traps, namely: 1) The belief that women's value is in the sexualization  of her body and 2) Women understanding their own body as ornamental, and that their sexuality should be per formative not subjective.  Dishearteningly, this is all too common among young women, and needs to stop.
       What Cyrus does need to answer for, is the distastefully racist way she affirms tired black sexuality stereotypes in the pursuit of that sexual identity; leading to the creation of a minstrel-esque bamboozled farce. Although experiencing gender inequality, Cyrus still gains privilege from her whiteness and class status.  To that end, the normalization and commodification of whiteness and blackness respectfully, affords her the luxury of ignorance.  She will be able to look back on this in twenty years as a "crazy-stupid" thing she did when she was young. Whereas,  black people of color will just have to add this to the already long list of examples in which their bodies and their culture have been used against them.    











* Note:The American Culture has had a long history with the hyper-sexualization of  black bodies (fearing the "animalistic" black male sexuality, while desiring the "exotic"  black female sexuality), especially those that were owned.  Now this ownership takes a new context in Cyrus' case. Through the commodification and exploitation of black women's bodies, Cyrus can feel value in her own body.

Ben Affleck is Batman...

       Ben Affleck has been cast as Bruce Wayne Batman in the as of yet untitled sequel to Man of Steel.  Those who are frequent readers of my blog (Are there any out there?) know that I HATED Man of Steel, mostly because I hate Zack Snyder as a director. I think that the characters in his films are often two dimensional (especially female characters that are often a masturbatory fantasy), His story structure lacks fluidity to the point that it can become incomprehensible, he writes wooden dialogue, and his action scenes are so quick, flashy and jumbled they nearly induce a seizure.  He is a music video director that shouldn't have left his roots.
        On the other hand, I really like Ben Affleck as a director.  With directing credits like Gone Baby Gone and The Town, he shook off the dead weight of "Bennifer" (the media dubbed highly publicized romance/near marriage to Jennifer Lopez) and previous acting flops like Gili and Boiler Room. With Argo and to a lesser extent Good Will Hunting, he made a name for himself as a competent writer/director with a style that is an eclectic mix of Billy Wilder, Sidney Lumet, Sidney Pollack, and Martin Scorsese. Gaining the accolades of his peers by winning the coveted Best Picture Oscar (for the previously mentioned Argo) Affleck is on his way to being a major force in Hollywood.
       I am so positive about Ben Affleck as a director that I was more than excited when rumors surfaced that he may direct a Justice League film (when there was still talks of one) and although nothing can touch Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy, I believe that Affleck can capture the gritty realism that is necessary to make Gotham City a real character in the inevitable Batman reboot (much like writer Scott Snyder has done in the comics).  As long as he stays behind the camera.
    When the casting news of Batman broke recently, I did not believe it. I was in shock.  Instantly, my mind went to all of the most awful roles Ben Affleck had ever played...and I thought it was brilliant. Why? Because I want The Man of Steel sequel to fail.  However, in a rare moment of optimism, I started to wonder if they hired Affleck, not so much because he would be a good Batman (more on that below), but because he is a more accomplished (and far better) director than Zack Snyder. With Affleck on board so early, perhaps he will advise the film through the pre-production stage as well as through production.  If he does, that will undoubtedly make the film better, or at least make it suck less.
         The four main reasons Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman is a problem:

    1) He will be the first Batman to follow Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman in The Dark Knight
       Trilogy. With such a beloved set of films completed a scant year ago, the news of Ben Affleck's
      casting falls flat.  There will be inevitable comparisons, and those comparisons will be harsh.
    2) Affleck's Batman will be more fantastical.  Living in the same world as the Man of Steel
        Superman, this Bruce Wayne will have to be more like the comics... that means closer to "Bat
        Shark Repellant" and nippled Batsuits than the Dark Knight detective. Not that these next set of
        films can't be more fantastical and still have a sense of realism, but with Snyder's creative
        team,we are more likely to get the former rather than the latter.
    3) The Character.  In all of Affleck's roles I have seen him in, nothing shows me that he can
         achieved the psychosis and gritty, brooding intensity of Bruce Wayne/ Batman.  My critics
         might say that the same thing was said about Heath Ledger being the Joker in The Dark Knight,
         to which I say it is not the same.  When I heard that Ledger was going to be the Joker, I
         looked at his past roles and saw glimpses of the intensity (not of the character) needed to play
         such a role. In Affleck's roles, I have seen none of that.
   4) The Voice. I just can't hear it. I shutter to think that Affleck is going to use the same/similar
        voice that he used for 2003's Daredevil.  That. would. be. Awful.

     In Conclusion, take my analysis with a grain of salt. I want this movie to fail and I want Snyder to be responsible.  Additionally, I feel that this film is being put together for all of the wrong reasons (namely money). Warner Brothers (WB) wants to catch up with Disney and Marvel (Impossible).  So, to try and break the records for The Avengers, the WB is arbitrarily putting the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman in the sequel to Man of Steel just for the box office. For those reasons, aside from the fanboy outrage that is trolling the internet, the excitement for the addition of Batman and Affleck is rather muted.