I Pray for San Bernadino

Dear Readers,

Sometimes I do book, movie, and T.V. reviews, and sometimes I get theological and political.  Today it is time for the later.  In light of the events in Paris last month, and those in San Bernadino yesterday, I wanted to comment on some of the responses I have seen to these tragedies.  As always, I welcome disagreement.  If you think I have said something wrong, or would like a position clarified, feel free to comment or message me.  Ultimately, I see my position as that of an intermediary, as someone who tries to think very carefully about where she stands, so she can explain her position to those who cannot comprehend why someone would believe as she does.

“Prayers aren’t working.”

This hook line from The New York Daily News, in the wake of the San Bernadino shooting sums up several of the responses I have seen to both this shooting, and that in Paris two weeks ago.  As these horrific and violent events have occurred, thousands have responded on social media to say that their thoughts and prayers are with the victims of these tragedies.  Yet some question this response.  The piece from The New York Daily News questions the efficacy of prayer, and the response of GOP presidential candidates to new of the shooting, asserting that the candidates should use the tragedy to speak out on gun regulation, instead of merely offering condolences and prayers.  The writer, Rich Schapiro, then goes on to praise Democratic candidates for their responses, which use the tragedy as a platform to push for greater gun control and regulation.  But does Mr. Shapiro’s article miss the point both of prayer and of the GOP candidates’ position?  How should individuals, how should politicians, and how should a nation respond to these terrible events?

After the attacks in Paris, two weeks ago, President Obama called for a cool headed response to the attack, requesting that we, as a nation, not allow the horror of the event to color our judgment or cause us to respond reflexively with actions we might later regret.  It is exactly this kind of over-reaction, however, that the San Bernadino shooting has elicited from the Democratic candidates.  Instead of waiting for the investigation to uncover how this atrocity occurred and what steps could potentially have been taken to avoid it, these politicians have responded reflexively in blaming guns for the problem and advocating prescriptive measures.  At best, this is an emotional reaction of the sort that the President wisely condemned.  At worst, these candidates are using the emotional fallout of the tragedy to push their political agenda, a shameful attempt to manipulate people into agreeing with a particular policy.  I abhor politicians who use tragedy as fuel to galvanize their political agenda.  I was appalled when Donald Trump made his tasteless comments after the Paris attacks, and I am sickened by the Democratic candidates use of the strategy now.

This begs the question, what is a politician’s proper response to tragedy?  I believe that in times of crisis, it is in the best interest of the nation for its leaders to promote unity.  Events like Paris, like the San Bernadino shooting, like the Boston bombings, like 9/11 should bring people together, should help politicians to forget, if only for a little while, their political party and policy agendas and instead focus on rebuilding, response, and eventually, prevention of further incidents.  Should the gun control debate be a part of that?  Potentially, but such a discussion in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy does not promote unity.  Gun control is a hugely divisive conversation in the USA, and advocating such a response immediately, while the investigation is ongoing, is not conducive to producing a climate of unity and effective response (I hope in a later post to speak more deeply on gun control, because the situation in the USA is much more complicated than I believe many people realize).  Instead of focusing on an issue that will divide people, politicians should instead craft responses to tragedy that demonstrate their concern about the victims of the event, and help bring people together in a spirit of solidarity.  The “tired script” Schapiro condemns of “thoughts and prayers with the victims” does this.  It expresses the unity of thought, in hoping the best for those involved, and it includes a promise of action.  At its worst, a politician praying for victims of a tragedy demonstrates an emotional response to and concern for those victims.  At its best, the promise of prayer is the greatest action that such a person can take.

This brings me to the national response to tragedy.  The open condemnation of prayer after both Paris and the San Bernadino attacks fails to recognize what prayer is to people who genuinely believe.  When a person of faith says that they will pray, they are not just expressing a hopeful sentiment, or wishing another well.  Prayer, for the believer, is an invitation to an all powerful, all good God to act within a circumstance.  There is no greater step toward change that one can take.  Because God is not only powerful, but good, such an invitation cannot be argued against on moral grounds.  The person who prays for Paris, or for San Bernadino is not forcing their religion on anyone else, but instead, is appealing to a power that has both the ability and the desire to create a perfect change for the better.  Thus, when an individual says he or she is praying for the victims of a tragedy, that person is taking the strongest action they can, inviting the most powerful person in the universe to act in the situation.

Does this mean that there should not be discussion on how changes can effectively be made to prevent the situation from occurring again, or action taken to support those who suffered through these tragedies?  Of course not!  God often acts through people, through the decisions that are made.  Those decisions, however, should not be made in the haste and emotional backlash of the tragedy, nor should these horrendous events be used as fuel for a political agenda.

Some people do not believe in the efficacy of prayer.  So be it.  They should not, however, immediately dismiss the actions of those who do believe.  I am a Christian.  You may not believe there is a God.  I believe there is.  I have been convinced of God’s existence by the evidence of my reason, my experience, and what I view as the evidence of history.  Ultimately, only death will tell who is correct.  In the meantime, my actions are consistent with what I believe, and saying that I am praying for someone is the greatest form of love and support that I can give to that person.  It is the most powerful action I can take, and I do not have to worry about negative repercussions when inviting the Goodly-Wise God to act.

Just because you do not agree with me does not give you the right to condemn either my motives, or, if no one is hurt by them, my methods.  This is what Mr. Schapiro failed to recognize in his opinion piece.  Candidates on both sides took action after this shooting.  One side responded by politicizing a tragedy and manipulating the emotional current of the nation for political gain.  The other took the most powerful step they could to unify, express solidarity, and open the door for further action.  If one considers merely the motives of those who spoke, which side expressed their beliefs with the greatest integrity and showed the greatest support of the victims of this latest atrocity?

Well, back to reality.

Heroes Reborn

Dear Readers,

So, I owe you an apology.  Things got a bit busy for me in September, and I was not able to get anything posted.  So this month, I have a review of Heroes Reborn, the revamp of the NBC show Heroes.  Next month, I am going to transition away from the reviews briefly and do another political post, since I got some pretty good response on the last one.  So if you are the kind of reader who likes my book and movie reviews, stick around here.  If you are more interested in my analyses of current events, feel free the skip up to that one.

Heroes Reborn

My first experience with superhero TV shows was the original Heroes, a fantastic show about a group of people who discover they have superpowers and end up working together to save the world.  While the later seasons of the show were disappointing due to the 2007-8 writers strike and subsequent poor writing, the initial season of the show created interesting characters with a diverse range of powers trying to unravel the puzzel in a series of prophetic paintings in order to prevent a nuclear explosion in New York city.  Along the way, the characters were forced to confront their powers, and how their new abilities impact their relationships with their friends and family.  Heroes Reborn is an attempt to recapture the fun, tension, and heart of that initial season of Heroes.

To some extent it succeeds.  While not as good a show as the original series, the reboot certainly exceeds expectations set by the later seasons of Heroes.  Much like Jurassic World, Heroes Reborn recaptures a brief glimpse of the magic of the original.  A few old faces return to the show, most notably Jack Coleman as Noah Bennet, the highly trained agent whose daughter, Claire was a main subject in the original series.  The show looks to also see the return of well loved characters like Mohinder Suresh, a genetic specialist with an interest in the evolution of superhuman abilities, Matt Parkman, a cop who can read minds, and Hiro Nakamura, the nerd who discovers he can manipulate the space-time continuum.  Along with the old faces come a variety of new characters with new powers… a young woman who can manipulate light and darkness, a boy who can teleport people and objects, a man who can transform sunlight into heat and energy, and a girl who can transform into a video game character.  Each of these has their own back story, motivations, and journey, although, as in the first season, it is obvious that their individual journeys all lead toward an encounter with each other and a mysterious impending doom.

One of the things the show has done very well is to show a possible response the world might have to the revelation of humans with superpowers.  Following an explosion at a conference designed to facilitate human and evo (evolved human) relationships, a negative backlash towards evos escalates into government and individual persecution and the heroes are hunted because of their powers.  The fear of “the Other” is powerfully evoked as the shows characters are forced to navigate a world which they are trying to save, but which rejects their efforts and views them as a threat.

This struggle is most effectively embodied in Zachary Levi’s character, Luke Collins.  After his son is killed in the explosion at the conference, Luke and his wife Joanne (played by Judith Shekoni) begin to hunt down and execute evos, viewing them as dangerous and uncontrollable.  While Joanne is fully dedicated to their vengeful executions, Luke begins to second guess their actions, particularly when confronted by the lives and families of the evolved humans he has murdered.  The emotionality both Levi and Shekoni bring to their roles make for one of the more interesting story arcs in the series so far.

Where Heroes Reborn falls short of the original show is in the performances of some of the younger cast members and in building the tension in the story over all.  The majority of the new characters are very young; averaging in their teens, with adult characters taking a supporting role.  This is very different from the original show, where the majority of the characters were in their twenties or thirties, and dealing with the difficulties of careers and everyday life along with their powers.  The comparative youth of the protagonists in the current series creates difficulties in the diolog and character representation, as the inexperience of the characters creates some absurd situations, and the teenage angst in dealing with parents and authority figures clashes with the political seriousness of the show as a whole.

Another aspect where the show is lacking in in the portrayal of any sort of antagonist or villain.  Initially, I assumed that Luke Collins and his wife would be the main antagonists for the first series.  However, recent episodes have indicated that, Luke at least, will be functioning as a protagonist for the show, leaving room for the introduction of a new villainous character.  The current antagonist, however, is a depressingly stereotypical badguy: the mysterious corporation.  Instead of placing an individual at the center of the series conflict, Heroes Reborn has created another boring mega-corporation that seems well intentioned but ultimately is working to destroy the protagonists.  Kidnapping “evos,” studying their powers, and using those powers to create new technologies, there is nothing interesting or compelling about Renatis as antagonist.  As a show that throve through the presence of an interesting villain (Sylar in the original Heroes), the cookie cutter blandness of an evil corporation in a science fiction show is hugely disappointing and frustrating.

Heroes Reborn, while not as powerful as the original series, is still a fun and fascinating superhero romp, with interesting characters, involved worldbuilding, and a great deal of potential.  Hopefully the rest of the season will retain the enjoyable aspects of the political and social discourse, while introducing some of the humor that was so excellent in the original, a more compelling villain, more mature characters to offset some of the juvenility of the current cast.

Well, back to reality.

Snow Crash Notes

Dear Readers,
It has been a pretty crazy month.  I finished writing my dissertation for my Masters, while also beginning to get ready to head back to the States.  Things being what they are, I have not been able to finish the post I was planning for you.  I was going to do a brief review of all of the movies I have seen over the summer, but since there is a pretty large number, and I want to do them justice, I am going to put that off, potentially until next month.  Anyway, in the mean time, I have a bit of a different post.  These are notes I made for a presentation I gave on Snow Crash by Neil Stevenson in my Cyberculture course I took last year.  While they might be a bit fragmented, hopefully it provides an interesting look at the interaction between myth and literature in the cyberpunk text.

Enjoy.
 

Snow Crash- Hiro Protagonist and the Hacker as Trickster

In our first reading from Timothy Leary, he equates the cyberpunk with the Japanese archetype of the ronin, then points to similar characters within western culture.

“The West has many historical parallels to the ronin archetype.  The term free lance has its origin in the period after the crusade when a large number of knights were separated from their lords…Maverick, derive from the Texan word for unbranded steer, is used to describe a free and self-directed indivitual.” (254)

The ronin, freelance, and maverick types, however, all bear similarities to another archetype, that of the mythological Trickster.  One of the most fascinating aspects of Snow Crash is the distinctively mythological nature of the story.  By tying in references to Sumerian and Judeo-Christian mythologies, Stephenson is able to weave his story with a sense of history and weight.  But Stephenson is not simply rehashing old mythologies, he is recontextualizing them into a modern framework.  One way in which he does this is embodying the mythological figure of the trickster into the computer programmer, in particular, in Hiro Protagonist.

In her essay “Hackers as Tricksters of the Digital Age,” Svetlana Nikitina outlines four basic characteristics of a trickster myth.  These are:

1.            The motif of duplicity (propensity for lying and deceit)

2.            The motif of boundary crossing (propensity for long-distance travel and connection             making);

3.            The motif of subversion of power (propensity for pranks and deconstruction of power             hierarchies);

4.            The motif of creativity and craftsmanship (propensity for finding creative solutions and             making original discoveries).

Motif of Duplicity

As opposed to morality, which we will discuss in a moment, duplicity is more about the process of deception in order to accomplish certain goals.  Nikitina describes it this way,

“As Hermes uses cowhides to conceal his identity and as Coyote, a trickster god in Native American folklore, impersonates a Creator, hackers assume different names and personae (such as Skel, Dark- Viper, Executioner, Genocide, Prophet) when they emerge in the silicon underground.” 

While Hiro tends to be very honest about his identity, he is not above using his skills for disguise and deceit,

 “In other places, invisible avatars are illegal.  If your avatar is transparent and reflects no light whatsoever- the easiest kind to write, it will be recognized instantly as an illegal avatar and alarms will go off.  It has to be written in such a way that other people can’t see it, but the real estate software doesn’t realize that it’s invisible.” (353)

But there is also a sense in which Hiro’s duplicity is not entirely the result of his desire to deceive others, but may, in fact, be a result of a lack of self-awareness,

“You’re a really smart hacker and the greatest sword fighter in the world—and you’re delivering pizzas and promoting concerts that you don’t make any money off of.” (410)

Motif of Boundary Crossing

This is the most obvious and developed Trickster trait developed in Hiro.  Both in Metaverse and Reality, Hiro is the most widely traveled character, entering forbidden locations in the Street like the Dark Sun and the tunnels of the Graveyard Daemons, to traveling from LA to Canada to the Raft, Hiro is constantly crossing physical borders.  It is not just the physical boundaries, however, that the trickster transcends.  Nitkitina,

“Trickster is a boundary crosser. Every group has its edge, its sense of in and out, and trickster is always there, at the gates of the city and the gateways of life, making sure there is commerce. He also attends the internal boundaries by which groups articulate their social life. We constantly distinguish – right and wrong, sacred and profane, clean and dirty, male and female, young and old, living and dead – and in every case trickster will cross the line and confuse the distinction. Trickster is the creative idiot, therefore, the wise fool, the gray-haired baby, the cross-dresser, the speaker of sacred profanities. Where someone’s sense of honorable behavior has left him unable to act, trickster will appear to suggest an amoral action, something right/wrong that will get life going again. Trickster is the mythic embodiment of ambiguity and ambivalence, doubleness and duplicity, contradiction and paradox.”

Hiro crosses racial boundaries; being of mixed ethnicity, an “Army brat,” who works for the Mafia and is a resident of Mr. Lee’s Greater Hong Kong.   As a perpetual outsider, he is most comfortable with boundaries and the potential for transgression,

“Besides, interesting things happen along borders—transitions—not in the middle where everything is the same.” (122)

Hiro is also constantly transcending boundaries in the Metaverse, and between the Metaverse and reality.  With many of the previous hackers we have encountered in our reading, there has been a division between the mind of the hacker in the net, and the body of the hacker, with the mind generally being privileged over the body.  In Hiro, however, both mind and body are important, and his great strength is that he is able to move fluidly from the Metaverse to reality and back again, as he does when attempting to rescue Juanita and YT on the Raft.

It is in the Metaverse, however, that Hiro demonstrates the trickster ability to transcend barriers most clearly.  He has access to the tunnels used by the Graveyard Daemons, an ability that no other person has.  He also can “hack” his way into closed systems,

“This is a hack.  It is really based on a very old hack, a loophole he found years ago when he was trying to graft the sword-fighting rules onto the existing Metaverse software…That is the whole purpose of a wall in the Metaverse; it is a structure that does not allow avatars to penetrate it.  But like anything else in the Metaverse, this rule is nothing but a protocol, a convention that different computers agree to follow…When you are connected to the system over a satellite uplink, as Hiro is, out here on the Raft, there is a delay as the signals bounce up to the satellite and back down.  That delay can be taken advantage of, if you move quickly and don’t look back.  Hiro passes right through the wall on the tail end of his all-penetrating katana.” (435)

While the laws of the Metaverse require adherence to certain rules and protocols, Hiro is able to trick the system and transgress borders.

Motif of Subversion of Power

While the world of Snow Crash is precludes the institutions against which a trickster would normally transgress, there are several examples of Hiro rebelling against institutional power.  First, in his position as an independent hacker.  Hiro could make good money if he was willing to write code for a corporation, but he considers such institutions devoid of creativity, and would rather work as a pizza deliverer than work for such a corporate entity,

“There’s no place for a freelance hacker anymore.  You have to have a big corporation behind you.” (70)

Even within the Metaverse, however, Hiro transgresses the imposed rules of institutions.  Upon entering the Dark Sun, Hiro opens Bigboard, a program that allows him to see the names of the other people in the club.

“It’s all unauthorized data that Hiro is not supposed to have.  But Hiro is not some bimbo actor coming here to network.  He is a hacker.  If he wants some information, he steals it right out of the guts of the system—gossip ex machina.” (55)

This program is illegal and highly disruptive to the system.  5David has informed Hiro that his program causes a glitches in the system, but HIro prefers to get his information by his own skill, rather than relying on 5David.

Motif of Creativity

The fourth characteristic that Nikitina outlines is that of creativity and craftsmanship.  Here again, Hiro stands out from some of the previous hackers we have encountered.  Gibson’s hackers are very reliant upon programs created by others for their major incursions into the depths of the matrix.  Hiro Protagonist, however, is a highly creative force.  He helped design the Metaverse, and because he is very self reliant, ends up writing his own programs in response to his situations.

“And in Flatland, when you need a tool, you just sit down and write it.  So Hiro starts by writing a few simple programs that enable him to manipulate the contents of the scroll without ever seeing it.” (352)

Indeed, when the Stephenson first introduces us to Hiro at the beginning of the story, he does so with the statement,

“If life were a mellow elementary school run by well-meaning education Ph.D.s, the Deliverator’s report card would say: ‘Hiro is so bright and creative but needs to work harder on his cooperation skills.’” (3)

Creative, but lacking cooperation skills could be the business card for archetypal Trickster; constantly innovating and pushing the boundaries, but doing so in such a way as to offend everyone around him.

Some Other Traits

Those are the four traits that Nikitina describes, I would like to add two more to the list.

First, the concept of the trickster as a guardian of the dead.  I mentioned this earlier when talking about the crossing of borders, but it bears a further look.  In classical mythology, Hermes would guide the souls of the dead into the underworld.  This has direct similarities to Hiro’s role in the Metaverse, where he constructed the Graveyard Daemons, and the tunnel system that allows the disposal of destroyed avatars.  Hiro is, in effect, the guide to the Underworld in the Metaverse, a fact that comes clear in his battle with Raven, where he tells YT:

“I control the Graveyard Daemons.  So all I have to do is kill the bastard once.” (439)

The second idea is the link between the hacker, the trickster, and language.  One of the most common appellations for a trickster is “silver tongued,” and more often than not, it is quick wit and fast talking that get tricksters into and out of trouble in stories.  Stephenson makes this connection through Enki, the Sumerian trickster god and master of language,

“Enki somehow understood the connection between language and the brain, knew how to manipulate it.  The same way that a hacker, knowing the secrets of a computer system, can write code to control it—digital nam-shubs.” (277)

Hiro also maintains some of the silver tongued glibness of a Trickster.  When attempting to buy the display model of a prototype motorcycle, he easily enters the role of a con man, ingratiating himself with the salesman, implying relationships with the manager, and paying a slightly higher price in order to avert suspicion about his actions.

Conclusion

In many ways, Hiro embodies a re-conception of the traditional Trickster fro the modern audience.  He is talented, intelligent, capable, but still dangerous and unpredictable.  The moment when he first kills a man in Reality is startlingly uncomfortable, as he has no sense of guilt over his actions, and his initial response is merely to compare it to his previous experience in the Metaverse.  It is moments like this where Hiro truly embodies the Trickster spirit, because, as Nikitina puts it, “Trickster gods defy our expectation of divine benevolence and challenge us to be prepared for deceit and pranks as part of the god’s exercise of creative powers.”  While one might enjoy the trickster, one does not trust him.  While Hiro Protagonist is one of the most likeable characters we have encountered in cyberpunk, it is good to look on him with a certain amount of distrust in the reading, and to realize, as much as you might like him, you probably wouldn’t want to rely on him in real life, and this is why he is the person he is; the Deliverator, the best sword fighter in the world, a brilliant hacker, unemployed, living alone.

Well, back to reality.

Superheroes: Age of Ultron and Daredevil (Finally!)

And now, the long delayed, much anticipated review of Avengers: Age of Ultron and Daredevil.  Thank you all for your patience, and I hope that I am still able to do both these great products justice even after this delay in writing.  I love comic book shows, and I am really excited to see what is coming next, both in film and television for the Marvel Extended Universe.

First, some thoughts on Age of Ultron.  I really enjoyed this movie.  I thought it had some really good elements that came together really well.  While it did have some mediocre moments, for the most part, I found the film to be a thoughtful and thought provoking romp through the superhero world.  There were some aspects of the performance that were somewhat disappointing, many of which have been mentioned by a number of critics online, particularly those familiar with the comics.  I will address these briefly, but in the main I plan to focus on what the movie did very well as opposed to what it did poorly.

One of the difficult aspects of dealing with such a large ensemble is time constraints which make it difficult to develop all the characters as fully as one might like.  This was evident in the first Avengers film, in which the history of Black Widow and Hawkeye were left mostly undeveloped, providing little to no frame of reference for their development in the film.  Similarly, in Age of Ultron, the story is dominated by the presence of Iron Man and Captain America.  In what seems a build-up to the upcoming Civil War, Steve Rogers and Tony Stark are continually placed in opposition to each other through the film, dividing the rest of the Avengers cast.  While the main focus seems to be on these two, however, the rest of the characters are still given opportunities to develop and define themselves as individuals.  This is accomplished in several ways.  The controversial romance between Natasha Romanov and Bruce Banner (more on this later) provided some interesting insights into the how each character sees their role in the Avengers, though humanizing glimpses of Natasha’s past and Banner’s guilt.  Hawkeye is also given brief chances to shine.  As one of the less powerful members of the Avengers team, his self reflective comments on his own capabilities provide great opportunities for humor, but are also used to demonstrate his internal conflict, and his depth of character in choosing to do the right thing, even when he feels overwhelmed.  For the most part, Age of Ultron was able to balance a very large cast of characters well, focusing in detail on a few specific personages, while allowing each of the members of the team to have brief moments of development.

Where the film fell short in this development is with the character of Thor.  One of the more powerful characters on the team, Thor is left largely undeveloped in Age of Ultron.  He is not shown to be dealing with any of the events of Thos: The Dark World, particularly the “death” of Loki, which should be having some sort of emotional effect upon his character.  And the moment where he could have been given some sort of development, when he leaves alone to look for answers about how to deal with Ultron, dealt with in a very hasty, and not well put together manner.  The scene at the “dream pool,” which is supposed to be a huge moment of transition for Thor’s character, both defining his actions in the rest of the film and setting up Ragnarok, is more confusing than interesting, and fails to provide the viewer with either entertainment or critical plot information.

Thor aside, Age of Ultron was a highly entertaining movie that was able to balance a large number of characters and themes with skill.  The way in which the story addressed concerns about the balance between liberty and security was particularly interesting.  This is a theme that has come to the forefront in the stage 2 Marvel movies, particularly in Captain America: Winter Soldier.  Perfect safety cannot be achieved unless freedom is sacrificed.  The two arguments are embodied in Iron Man, who wants “to put the whole earth in a suit of armor,” and Captain America, who privileges personal freedom over safety.  Neither side of the argument is presented as being entirely correct, and the ambiguity of the morality of the issue causes the once stable Avengers team to fracture.  Because the issue is also left unresolved, it provides a perfect segue into the upcoming Civil War, where the heroes will once again be divided, and placed in conflict with each other.

Another issue that many fans of the comics had with the film was that Ultron was not a compelling villain.  People complain that the film has reduced him to a shadow of his comic book self, removing much of the power that made him such a fearful adversary.  As a non-comic-book-reader, I can still see their point.  Ultron is not a hugely memorable villain; the Avengers team is more threatened by their internal bickering than by any scheme he ultimately devises.  However, this is a common feature and issue in the MCU.  With the exception of Loki, the villains of Marvel movies tend to be dull caricatures motivated by base goals, who serve only to propel the plot for the protagonists.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  Shallow villains give a film time to emphasize the development of the hero; in Age of Ultron, it is not the robot who is the threat, but what confronting him reveals about the status of the Avenger’s team.  While it is possible to focus on both a complex villain and the internal struggle of the hero, in a film balancing such a large cast, it is understandable that there just was not time to do both.

Finally, a brief comment on the whole Black Widow/Hulk and Scarlet Witch/ Quicksilver controversy.  I understand, given Joss Whedon’s track record with powerful female characters, why some critics would be upset by the choice to pigeon-hole two such powerful female characters into relationships.  Again, as a non-reader of the comics, here is my view of the situation.  Black-Widow, as indicated by her very name, defines herself by the men around her.  She uses her sexuality as a shield to protect herself, and as a weapon to disarm “more powerful” masculine opponents.  Her relationship with the Bruce Banner serves a double purpose.  She is still defining herself by masculine presence, but in this situation, her affection seems genuine, and not some sort of power play.  While this is not a feminist development, it is a development in the character as seen in the MCU that works, allowing her to develop a certain amount of vulnerability.  That vulnerability requires more strength for Natasha Romanov than being a single butt-kicking-badass ever could.  As a woman, seeing a strong female character overcome her fear of intimacy while being willing to sacrifice her personal happiness, and kick ass at the same time was more inspiring than a multitude of perpetually single, anti-social feminist stereo-types.  Not politically correct, I know, but there it is.

In the case of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, I again take a slightly unusual view.  For me, the difference between that relationship, and the hundred other “man encourages woman to be her better, more powerful self” clichés is the fact that they are siblings.  As an older sister, it seems perfectly legitimate to me that one sibling, regardless of gender, would play the part of protector and encourager to the other.  The relationship is surprisingly similar to that between Elsa and Anna in Frozen if you consider how the siblings relate to each other through their traumatic history, yet the relationship between two female siblings is held as a feminist ideal, while the introduction of a masculine sibling causes outrage.  Finally, the fact that it is Quicksilver’s death that forces Scarlet Witch to fight to her full potential seemed accurate to me.  Again, speaking as both a sibling, and a reserved personality, the only thing I can think of that would spur me to any sort of overwhelming violence would be a threat to my sisters.   From that perspective, while I understand the criticisms made about the relationship, I personally found them compelling and an entertaining part of the film.

While Age of Ultron did have its issues, particularly in balancing such a large cast, the film was both entertaining and thoughtful, and provided an excellent lead in to the future Marvel movies.  The main issues with the film can be addressed through the lens of perspective (as with Black Widow and Scarlet Witch), the issue of timing (in the development of certain characters), or in the context of Marvel films generally (as in the issues with the villain).

Daredevil

One way in which many of these issues can be fixed is through a change in the medium of presentation.  While Age of Ultron was limited by a three hour run time, Netflix’s Daredevil was able to explore its characters in depth and build a coherent story arc, simply because the 11 episode season gave the series more time to examine them.  Daredevil gave me everything I wanted in a superhero TV show… excellent action scenes, good tension built between the hero and the main villain, an interesting supporting cast, and great world building as the series connects the story to the greater Marvel universe and takes the time to tell the hero’s backstory.  Fair warning, there will be spoilers in here.

Straight of, I am going to admit, I was already a bit of a Daredevil fan coming into the show.  While it was not a great film, I though the Ben Affleck movie played with some really interesting themes, particularly in the use of religious imagery and symbolism.  I was also intrigued by Daredevil’s ability: his superpower is both a disability and an advantage, as the loss of his sight and subsequently heightened sense what define Matt Murdock as a hero.  I think there is a lot of potential in the character, and I thought the Netflix show did an excellent job in taking advantage of the material.

First, let me rave about the fight scenes.  It is a terrible cliché, but as someone who has practiced martial arts for a number of years, a lot of fight scenes in movies get really annoying.  There is a limited amount of damage that the human body can sustain before it ceases to function, and most of the time media pushes well beyond the boundaries of reality.  In a superhero film, this can sometimes be explained away as a product of the hero’s superhuman capabilities, but that excuse does not work in Daredevil, where the hero does not possess super strength or healing capabilities.  What is so great about the action scenes in Daredevil is the show pulls no punches (quite literally), and shows the damage that those levels of physical violence does to a human being.  Bruises from a fight in one episode carry over into the next; Matt is constantly being stitched up, and his fighting capacity is limited by his physical condition.  Not only is Matt Murdock human in his capabilities, so are the villains he fights.  The show does not draw the curtain over the damage Daredevil does to his adversaries; when an arm is broken, one can see bone sticking out of the skin.  Patients are rushed to the hospital in critical condition and take weeks to recover, and some are left in comas by the vigilante’s “justice.”  Because Netflix is able to target a very specific audience with this show, they also are comfortable with showing more violence than would necessarily be allowed either in a film or on normal TV.  What is so great about the show is that instead of reveling in gore as is the case in many R rated films, they use the violence to accentuate the story, using it as a tool to depict the impact of a superhero lifestyle on the characters.

The show is not only realistic in its depiction of the result of violence, but also in the way that violence in accomplished.  Again, as a martial artist, I hugely appreciated the lengths the show went to make the fight sequences realistic and believable.  Some punches miss the target, some blocks fail to stop a punch, and when Daredevil faces a large number of opponents, he struggles when they all attack as a group.  This is a realistic scenario, even for a highly trained person with years of experience.  While remaining realistic, the fight scenes still manage to be elegant examples hand to hand combat, and the choreography and camera work on the sequences in a work of art.  For those individuals who love a really good action sequence, Daredevil has some of the best I have ever seen.

Moving beyond the action, the show also does a very good job of creating interesting and relatable characters.  Matt Murdock is joined by his partner in law, Foggy Nelson, and their receptionist, Karen Page, in an effort to help the struggling underclass of Hell’s Kitchen.  The chemistry between the three main characters is great, and many of the scenes in which they are working together on the legal aspects of a case are among the most enjoyable in the series.  But just as the show demonstrates the impact that physical violence has on the body, it also shows the repercussions the character’s choices have on their relationships with each other.  Matt and Foggy’s relationship is shattered when Foggy learns that Matt has been hiding his vigilante activities from him.  When Karen is forced to kill one of the villains, even though it was a clear case of self-defense, she is tormented by the guilt of having taken a human life, and that guilt creates a further strain on the relationship between the three comrades.  Overall, one of the major themes of the show is that actions have consequences, and that a persons choices have repercussions, not just for themselves, but for the people around them.

This theme finds its most eloquent expression in the treatment of religion in the film.  This was one of the aspects I loved about the 2003 Daredevil; religious imagery and symbolism were hugely important in that film, almost to the level of cliché.  The great thing about the Marvel show is that, while religion is handled with a similar intensity, it does not desintegrate into stereotype.  Given the show’s wider context in the Marvel Extended Universe, including references to the events of Avengers, Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America, the show takes time to consider what sort of impact this superhero world would have upon a man of faith.  The conversations between Matt Murdock and his priest become an exploration of faith, and the more the Matt breaks down physically and emotionally, the more he begins to turn to his faith for strength, transitioning from the beginning of the series where he states that his mother “was the real Catholic” to the end, where he owns both priest and church as his own.  Religious themes, including theological musings about the role of the devil are woven into the texture of Daredevil, another bold move from a television provider aware of their audience.  There is not ideological uniformity in the Marvel universe because people are too complicated for that; even when Norse gods walk the earth, an Irish-American Catholic can still find guidance and wisdom in the teachings of the church, and it is really neat that Netflix decided to show this aspect of the Daredevil character and mythos.

It is the relationship between the show and the MCU that ultimately made this my favorite superhero experience of the year so far.  While other shows (Arrow and The Flash) have the longer format that allows greater character development over the course of an entire season, the interconnectedness of the world is not as great as that presented in the Marvel universe.  Each Marvel product is an individual experience, but it is also part of a greater whole, a stepping stone toward the next experience.  Thus, Daredevil contains many references to events of The Avengers, Thor, Iron Man, and the rest of the MCU.  The interaction between these franchises creates a world that is greater than the sum of its parts, and allows the nerd with mildly obsessive tendencies (read “me”) to learn the vast history of this new world, a history that both reflects and diverges from our own.  I certainly hope that future seasons of Daredevil include further references, and hopefully cameo appearances by other characters in order to continue to weave this vast tapestry of characters and events into a beautiful tapestry of superhero nerdiness.

Finally, a quick word about the villain.  While villains in the MCU tend to be a bit flat, Daredevil takes its time with Wilson Fisk, providing glimpses of his background, examining his emotional and mental volatility, and probing his motivations in a characterization that is more reminiscent of a DC (read Batman) villain.  The similarities and differences between Fisk and Murdock are carefully explored, with each proving to be a foil for the other in their motivations, character flaws, and personalities.  Just as this first season develops the Daredevil persona, culminating in the donning of the full costume at the end of the series, it is also the development of Wilson Fisk from the amorphous “man behind the curtain” into the notorious “Kingpin.”  The show allows both characters to come into their own, and hopefully in future seasons, we will see these two antagonists again meet in their more fully developed capacities.

Ultimately Daredevil did everything I wanted in a piece of superhero media.  The longer format of a TV show allowed for extra time in the development of both hero and villain.  The specialized audience expectations from Netflix enabled the show to take chances in the presentation of both violence and religion, risks that I felt paid off in the long run.  Finally, the connection with the MCU and speculation about future crossovers allowed this series to feel like a part of a vast world building phenomena, the kind of worldbuilding that is exciting for nerds like myself.  There are some very valid criticisms of Daredevil.  In some ways, it does rip off a lot of the tropes (and potentially some dialog) from various Batman products, and this is annoying to many DC fans.  Some viewers were also disappointed by Elden Henson’s portrayal of Foggy Nelson, and thought that the character was a bit annoying.  Personally, I did not find this to be a problem and I liked the characterization, but that is more a matter of opinion that analysis.  Ultimately, I thought that Daredevil was an excellent superhero show, that was very satisfying in the risks it took and the way that it treated its subject matter.

Well, back to reality...and my thesis, which I really should be working on ;)

An American in Ireland: Gay Marriage and Moral Fundamentalism

Dear Readers,

First, I want to apologize that I am not able to write my reviews of Avengers: Age of Ultron or Daredevil this month.  Things have been pretty busy with writing my thesis and everything, and before I knew it, it is two days to the end of June and I still have not written anything for you lovely people.  So, in light of current events, I have decided to get a bit political in this post.  If you have no interest in politics, feel free to scroll down to some of my previous posts, and please come back next month, when I should be back to pop culture analysis.

As an American living in Ireland, over the last few months, I have been constantly exposed to conversations, facebook posts, articles, and videos advocating marriage equality.  After the Supreme court decision on Friday, it seems like this issue is the dominant topic of conversation for the majority of people in my friend circles, and I have come to realize that I am a part of a silent minority, afraid of speaking out in public circles for fear of recrimination from an intolerant majority.

So, I wanted to take this opportunity to break my silence on the issue of gay marriage, its legalization here in Ireland, and the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing it in the USA.  I know that this is a sensitive issue, and I do not mean for this post to be in any way hurtful to any of my friends who are on the opposite side of this issue.  This is me, working out my thoughts verbally, and trying to convey them to the other side.  I don’t think I will convince anyone, but perhaps I can help people be a little more open minded about the issue.

Before I start talking about marriage, I want to briefly discuss my views of homosexuality in general.  I am a Christian, and I believe that homosexual actions are sinful.  I can already hear the angry cries of “homophobe” and “bigot” that will accompany this statement, however, allow me to explain.  My faith requires me to believe in the Word of God as a source of Truth and a guideline for proper Christian behavior.  Also, from my studies of the Bible, I believe that there is a strong case for declaring homosexuality a sin.  There are two big conditions that I must attach to this statement.  First, there are many sins, and homosexuality is in no way “special” or “the worst.”  I believe an individual is just as likely to go to hell for gluttony or gossiping as they are for being gay.  Human nature is inherently fallen, and each individual has their own issues that will prevent them from being in perfect relationship with God.  That is why Christians believe we need Jesus, the only person to ever live a perfect life, to save us, because we cannot conquer our pride or selfishness or dishonesty without his power living in us.  This brings me to the second condition.  I believe that it is only the power of Christ that empowers to live a life free of sin.  Personally, I am still a flawed and sinful individual, despite having access to the power of the Holy Spirit.  I am still selfish, fearful, and proud.  If I, who has been redeemed by Christ, cannot continuously live according to the standard of Christian behavior, I have no right to expect those who reject the work of Christ to live according to those standards.  I cannot expect those who do not have Christ living in them to live a Christian life.

Homosexuality is not the first sinful behavior to be endorsed as good by our society, nor will it be the last.  Modern American culture encourages a level of consumption and gluttony that is appalling, adultery and heterosexual immorality are commonplace.  Lying is justified in the rush for personal advancement and theft is allowable as long as you don’t get caught.  It is not the end of the world to have society and governments endorsing an action that Christians ultimately believe to be immoral.

And this is where the issue of marriage equality becomes complicated for me.  Marriage, as we know it today, has a complex bundle of meanings, which are dominantly religious or political.  From the religious definition, I have trouble supporting the legalization of gay marriage.  Marriage is a sacrament in some churches, reflecting the relationship between Christ and his church.  To call a homosexual relationship, which Christian doctrine views as sinful, a marriage is to associate the name of Christ with that which He finds abhorrent.  Such a definition of marriage fundamentally questions the foundations of the Christian faith.  Thus, from the perspective of the religious definition of the term, of marriage as holy matrimony, I am opposed to legalizing gay marriage.

On the other hand, marriage is also a political term, a term that arises from the practice of government giving special benefits to two people who have institutionalized their relationship with each other in a recognized manner.  From this perspective, gay marriage should be legalized.  It is not the responsibility of a government to legislate morality, but the government does have a responsibility treat members of the society it governs equally.  Gay marriage should be legally recognized because heterosexual marriage is legally recognized.

Thus, when the marriage referendum passed by popular vote here in Ireland, I was no in any way upset.  Would I have voted yes?  Probably not, simply because of the dictates of my own conscience and problematic religious connotations of the term marriage.  However, the people of Ireland declared that they wished to preserve the equality of their citizens over a historic Christian morality, and that was completely acceptable.

Which brings me to the recent Supreme Court decision.  Having expressed my indifference for Ireland’s decision to legalize gay marriage, many people assume that I am equally indifferent to the process by which it was legalized in the USA.  The problem is the way in which this legalization occurred.  Under the US constitution, the role of the Supreme court is to interpret the law and the constitution.  This decision, however, was a blatant example of legislating from the bench.  The USA is a democratic republic! The power to make laws rests firmly in the hands of the congress, not of the Supreme Court.  By unilaterally declaring gay marriage to be legal in the United State, the Supreme Court is trampling the rights and expressed desires of the people of the various states.   This is a usurpation of power, power that should be designated to the individual states, and to the popular consensus of the people within the individual states, has been appropriated at a federal level, and worse, by the judicial system.  The five judges who voted to declare gay marriage legal in the states took upon themselves, an unelected, non-representative body, the authority to declare law in opposition to the expressed opinions of the majorities in a number of states.

Consider if the decision had been slightly different.  Imagine if the Supreme Court had ruled that, regardless of what the individual states might vote and decide, the federal government defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and for this reason, no individual state has the right to legalize gay marriage.  There would have been a huge public outcry against such a decision, because it would be seen as flying in the face of individual rights and democracy.  But the current decision, which violates the rights of states that have voted against gay marriage and the individual rights of freedom of religion and expression, has been viewed as an entirely positive and welcome development.

The assumptions behind this ruling are patronizing and bigoted, and the repercussions it will have throughout the states are disturbing.  This ruling rests on a series of unfortunate assumptions; first that Americans actually want this change in their laws, but thus far have been incapable of voting properly to express this desire.  This patronizing assumption questions the mental and political capability of the individual American citizen, and is an expression of an elitist mindset that is in fundamental opposition to the principles of democracy.  The second foundational assumption of the ruling is that everyone who disagrees with the ruling is entirely wrong to do so, and is morally bankrupt for professing such a belief in the light of current opinion on social equality.  This assumption is even more dangerous than the first, because it is the sort of bigoted fundamentalism that is usually only condemned in churches.  The thoughtless and unwavering assumption that “my opinion is the correct one” and the belief that the rightness of an opinion entitles one to act oppressively against the expressed wish of the people is a basic tenant of a dictatorship, not a democracy like the United States.

The tyrannical imposition of minority belief upon the majority of the American people has frightening implications for those who stand on the “wrong” side of these fundamentalists.  The enforced legalization of gay marriage has given an air of legitimacy to a despotic minority who will use their new protected status to oppress and silence anyone who disagrees with their opinion.  This has been the case in instances of businesses, who were sued after Christian owners refused service to homosexual couples on the basis of their religious beliefs.  The right of the business owners to practice their religion according to the dictates of their own conscience has been subsumed by radical fundamentalists who seek to use the government to impose their morality on anyone who might have a different opinion.  The very issue for which they condemned the Christian opposition has become the platform of the advocates of homosexual marriage.

I realize my tone may have gotten a bit strident toward the end of this post.  I am frustrated at the gross usurpation of power that I see in my nation at the moment, as the authority which is supposed to be allocated to the people through the states has been shifted to the federal government, and by the hypocrisy I see in those who oppose the imposition of Christian ideals upon non-Christians yet seek to legislatively enforce their own opinions on those who happen to disagree with them.  Ultimately, this is a complicated issue with many sides and opinions, and much of the vitriol and hatred seems to arise from those on both sides who are simply unable to consider the opinion and positions of those on the opposite side of the debate.  I hope that this post has presented something of an alternative viewpoint, again, not in the interest of convincing people to change their minds, necessarily, but rather, of demonstrating the complexity of opinion without reducing such an argument to a black and white dichotomy.

Well, that was a bit of a heavy post.  I have been thinking about writing something like this for a few months now, and the recent supreme court decision finally pushed me to get this finalized.  Hopefully I will be back to the fun stuff next month, and I hope to see you all then!

Back to Reality!

Superheroes: Arrow and The Flash

Dear Readers,
I have a confession to make.  Well, actually, I have two.  My first confession is that I am one of those nerds who loves superhero movies and T.V.  This might not be surprising for many of you; if you have followed my posts in the past, you will have seen that several are superhero related in theme and content.  My second confession if to other superhero nerds out there: I never read the comics.  I know I am damaging my nerd cred by saying this, but there was not a comic book store in my small town, I do not have a collection of comics filling a suitcase under my bed, and the majority of my knowledge in regard to superheroes comes from films, television, and the internet.

As a consumer of superhero related media, I have thoroughly enjoyed the spring and early summer of this year.  It is a good time to be a superhero nerd.  It seems that masked crusaders have taken over the T.V. with shows like Agents of Shield, Arrow, and The Flash, spilling over onto the web with shows like Daredevil and the soon to be released A.K.A. Jessica Jones.  On the big screen, we saw the return of the Avengers in Age of Ultron, and over the summer we can look forward to Ant Man, Fantastic Four, and Batman Vs. Superman.  Due to time constraints and my limited ability to watch all the shows, I wanted to focus of two of these this month, then cover a couple more in June.  I decided to start with the two CW shows, Arrow and The Flash.  What I want to do is focus on the development of the concept of the superhero in each of these shows, examining what I think is done well, and what potentially undercuts the quality of the shows.

Arrow
Of the four superhero franchises I have listed, Arrow is probably my least favorite.  There are a couple of reasons for this.   We are three seasons into this show, so we already know most of the secrets about Oliver Queen's history, the motivations for his companions, and we have seen them overcome the barriers that prevent them from being an effective team.  The problem becomes "how do you break a team that you (and the audience) have previously invested a great deal of time into getting just right?"  At this point, the friction that builds between the characters seems forced and unnatural, and many of the story lines seem to regress rather than push the narrative forward. SPOILERS! The entirety of Oliver's campaign against Raz al Ghoul this season is simply a bigger, more expansive version of his conflict against Malcolm Merlin in the first season; from the multiple failed attempts to defeat him in battle, to the high stakes threat against Starling City, to the conflict with various members of the team in regard to the morality of his potential actions, down to the final resolution in which Oliver is finally able to defeat his nemesis by coming to grips with his identity.  The tension between Oliver, Felicity, and Diggle seems forced, and I as am getting a bit tired of hearing the same conversation over and over again, ("How do we know we can trust Malcolm Merlin?" "You can't, but you have to do it anyway." or "I want to be with you, but I can't because you put yourself in danger all the time!"  Seriously guys, come up with some new material!

 On a more positive note.  One of the things that Arrow has done very well, and one of the reasons I keep coming back to it, is in the addition of interesting side characters with fascinating story arcs.  The best examples of this are Nyssa al Ghoul and Thea Queen.  The interaction between Nyssa and Black Canary Laurel Lance are some of the most interesting and genuinely moving parts of the show.  The similarities between the two women, despite their obvious cultural background differences make them very interesting counterparts for each other, and provides Nyssa with a short character arc that makes her very interesting.  Similarly, with Thea, we get to see her develop into a capable warrior character, but one who is also very conflicted about her role in the story.  One of the most interesting moments of the season came when Thea is forced to confront the way in which she allows the men in her life to define her as a person.  Granted, she is still very much an angst ridden character who spends more time moping and feeling guilty than actually doing anything... but hey, its a superhero show.


Another interesting and highly entertaining addition to the show this season has been Ray Palmer, the Atom.  DC's version of Iron Man, Palmer has been a source of levity in an otherwise dark and depressing season.  The relationship between him and Felicity Smoke is very sweet, and he plays very well on a scale of character competence, being innovative, but slightly less brilliant than Felicity, and being heroic, but less capable than Oliver.  Of all the characters of the show, I most look forward to seeing what will happen in the future with Atom, and how he will interact with the universe that The CW is building through their TV shows.

The Flash
Speaking of the CW/DC universe, The Flash has been a rather pleasant surprise.  It is still a bit campy, and the angst factor which I mentioned in regard to Arrow is also a problem, but overall the show was an enjoyable romp.  Grant Gustin brings an entertaining performance as Barry Allen, a forensic scientist who was struck by lightning and given the superpower of being able to run at incredible speed.  Each week sees the scarlet speedster taking on new superpowered enemies, culminating in a confrontation with the Reverse Flash, the man who killed Barry's mother when he was young.

One of the cool parts of the show is the way in that the weekly format allows for episodic interactions with various interesting supervillains.  The explosions that gave Barry his powers affected many other people as well, and the effects are still being felt over the whole course of the season.  On occasion the episodic nature becomes problematic when the stories begin to feel a bit formulaic (around midseason), but this was a relatively small problem.  The other major downside of the show, was again, the angst.  The last five episodes of the season have dealt almost exclusively with Barry's confrontation with the Reverse Flash, a confrontation that inevitable leaves him doubting himself, hesitant in his relationships with the people around him, angrily acting stupidly, or just generally being lame.  I know, I know, the superhero has to go through some form of emotional breakdown so that he can pull himself up by the bootstraps and do the right thing anyway, but, when you are watching the equivalent of a five hour movie, in which a good three hours are simply moping, it gets a bit exhausting.  This is the downside of the superhero tv show... things that make total sense in a movie, like twenty minutes of self pity before the final confrontation, begin to get annoying when they happen every week, week after week.  Again, I know you have to have the hero fail at the beginning of the hour so that it more impressive when he succeeds at the end of the hour, but more of the middle time should be spent problem solving than moping when you have this sort of structure.

One of the best things about The Flash, which has also become a great part of Arrow as well is the fact that these stories take place in the same universe, so there is crossover between the two shows.  Those superhero versus and team up episodes are the best.  They get to take what are two very different teams and two very different styles of superhero-ing and crimefighting, and put them together.  It spices up the dynamic in the old Arrow team and provides great learning time for the new Flash team.  I really wish there were more of these episodes in the season.  Similar to the complaints that came out during the solo Marvel movies after the first Avengers, "Why don't they call ____ in this situation, he/she could probably really help out."  Both Oliver and Barry's problems would be a lot less intimidating if they were working together instead of simply running in once in a while to help out.  Fortunately, it looks like there might be a fair bit of superhero team-up going on in the new show Legends of Tomorrow, which looks to include both the Flash and Arrow, as well as some other superhero characters.  Something to look forward to.

Next time, on Ramblings of Literary Whimsy
So, hopefully next month, I will have a bit more time to examine more of these awesome superhero products.  I really look forward to talking about both Avengers: Age of Ultron and Daredevil.  I was planning on covering them this month, but with college and everything else going on, I ran out of time, and I wanted to at least get something posted for May, even if it wasn't everything I wanted to write.  Hope you guys enjoyed my thoughts on Arrow and The Flash, and hopefully come back next month for more superhero fun.

Well, back to reality!

Butts and Feminisim

Dear Readers,

At this point, no apology I make can make up for the fact that I have not written you for so long.  I have tried.  This is the fourth or fifth time I have started writing on a post, only to leave it behind because I did not have time, or did not have enough to say on the subject.  I also know that I promised you all a review of The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies.  Please bear with me a while longer on that review.  I was only able to see the film once in the cinema, and I have not had an opportunity for a second viewing yet, which I prefer to do before I write a major judgment on the film.

Instead of looking at The Hobbit, I have decided to give you all a brief glimpse into what I am doing for college, and what has been going on in my head lately.  Basically, I am going to talk about feminism.  Please don’t run away, I hope to deal with the topic in both an entertaining and hopefully thought provoking way.  If you start, please keep reading to the end; I am dealing with a very complicated issue, and many of the things I am saying, taken out of context, will place both myself and the subject of my analysis in a bad light.  Hopefully by the end, I will be able to draw this all together into a cohesive whole, so please bear with me.

The idea for this post came a couple of days ago, when my current favorite band, Home Free, released a music video entitled “The Butts Medley.”  I am including a link, so you guys can go check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA0WCc3vTls.  The song, as the title suggests, is a mash-up of country, rap, and pop songs that talk about women’s posteriors.  It is very funny, but as a female viewer, I was mildly disturbed.  Each of these songs is objectifying toward women, reducing them from an individual with a personality, thoughts, and feelings, to a singular sexually charged physical attribute, a.k.a a butt.  The women are only present in these songs to be looked at by the men, for their viewing pleasure and gratification.

This perception of women as existing only in relationship to the men looking at them is a problem in a lot of music, but especially at the moment in American country music.  Maddie and Tae address this issue in their comic video, “Girl in a Country Song” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MOavH-Eivw.  With lines “like all we’re good for is lookin’ good for you and your friends on the weekend” and “we’re lucky if we even get to climb up in your truck keep our mouth’s shut and ride along,” Maddie and Tae highlight the massive subjection of women to the male gaze in current country music songs and videos.  To highlight the problematic way in which women are portrayed in country music videos, they gender bend their video, placing male characters in the situations and positions in which it is common to see women in country music videos.

Which brings me back to Home Free’s “Butts Medley.”  One of the most recognizable figures from the Maddie and Tae music video is a rather heavy man, who in the gender bent section of the song, is dressed in a pair of cutoff overalls with no shirt and one strap undone.  Appearing in a variety of poses common to women in country music videos, this character provides most of the humor and ideological punch in the song.  A very similar character also appears at the end of Home Free’s video, dancing with the band, and a line-up of average “country” girls.  Such an instantly recognizable homage to the “Girl in a Country Song,” in a medley that is blatantly about the objectification of women initially seems odd.

But a closer look at the video quickly reveals the nature of the inclusion.  Because while the band is singing about looking at women’s butts, the camera is focused on the backsides of the men.  There are several shots of the members of the band from the back, walking up stairs, dancing, posing, as well as a number of partial body shots emphasizing legs and crotch.  In contrast, the women are generally portrayed in longer shots from the front.  It is very rare for the video to portray a woman from behind, and it is never the specific focus of a shot like it is for the men.  So as the men sing about objectifying women they are being deliberately objectified by the camera and the viewer of the video.  The inclusion of the character from “Girl in a Country Song” demonstrates the awareness of the creators of the video of the feminist difficulty with their material, and their response to it.  The lyrics of the song do objectify women, but the video makes it clear that they are doing so ironically.

Does the fact that a works is beings ironically sexist make it any less objectionable?  After all, the majority of people are not going to look at a music video and think “Hmm, this is being ironically misogynistic in an attempt to undermine the gender stereotypes perpetuated by mass media culture.”  The average viewer is going to watch that video, think “that was fun,” then proceed though the rest of their day, maybe humming the tunes or singing the un-ironically sexist lyrics.  By using sexist conventions to attempt to subvert the misogynistic message of the song, could the video actually be perpetuating problematic perspectives?  Or is the inclusion of subversive material in a video seems to perpetuate gender norms an effective way of communicating that subversion?

Yes.  No.  Maybe?  I don’t know.  The more I consider the issue, the more uncertain I become.  And I have finally decided that is alright.  Because this is a complicated issue, and it involves a series of questions that each individual will answer differently.  For me, the video is a good feminist critique of country music and the objectification of women in the genre.  That is because I read the “text” of the video in a particular way.  Others might read it entirely differently.

If this reading is ultimately subjective, what was the purpose?  If I can come to two opposite conclusions about a single video in the course of two paragraphs of analysis, what is the point?  There are two answers to this question.  First, the portrayal of women in mass media is an important issue in the debate about gender roles in our society.  Recognizing that debate, and placing this video in that perspective allows me to recognize the issue and contextualize it in my own experience.  The second reason that I found this analysis valuable is that it forced me to think about the different possible perspectives on the subject, both those with which I agree and those with which I do not.  This enforced change of perspective allows for a greater recognition of the opinions of other around me, and an appreciation for the diversity of their points of view.

I have run out of time for writing.  I hope that this was entertaining, interesting, and thought provoking, and that I was able to bring all the tangled web of my thoughts into some sort of coherent form.  I will admit, I am not the most informed or the best analyst on the topics of media studies or feminism.  If there are people out there better informed or with differing opinions, I invite you to comment here.  I am looking to learn, and I would welcome conversation.  I ask only that you be polite and considerate.  I want this post to be a forum for congenial conversation not another internet page where people take out their own insecurities with their opinions on others in the form of bitter or bilious comments.

Well, back to reality.