A Black Mirror to Militarism

The Black Mirror episode titled Men Against Fire exemplifies Hasian’s theory of film as a medium to pose the East as the “other” to Western culture and interests. This theory is marked by the use of American exceptionalism as currency, portraying the other as often dark, uncultured, and dangerous.

Men Against Fire is titled after “Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command” by Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall. Marshall’s book delves into the phenomenon of soldiers in battle failing to use their firearms (cited as a mere 20% of soldiers fired their rifles during the World Wars). The episode picks up from Marshall’s idea and presents a futuristic society in which soldiers are given a brain implant, called “Mass” that affects their perception of the world in order to make them fight and train more effectively. The episode arc follows the main character Stripe as his implant malfunctions and he discovers that the “Roaches” (hideous and aggressive humanoid monsters) that he and his comrades have been hunting and killing are actually just subjugated humans who steal for self-preservation and fight for self defense. The Mass implant changed their appearance in order to make them appear as dangerous monsters. In reality, the Roaches were a race of people who lost a war and have been persecuted by the government ever since, subjected to more and more surveillance until eventually being exterminated all together.

The text of this episode can clearly be read as an allegory of how media (in this case film) function to distort our view of the other, especially in order to serve outside government and military interests.  The Mass of the episode functions similarly to the movie Zero Dark Thirty in pushing an agenda. Hasian noted that while “others argue that their cinematic representation does not entail any partisan position,” the movie in fact at least perpetuated the CIA’s framing of the story. Similarly, the seemingly neutral Mass uses media techniques to “frame” reality in the way most beneficial militarily. The false portrayal of the Roaches speaks directly to the representation the other (the East) generally gets in modern film; A contrived representation of darkness, inhumanity, and aggression. We can extend this to our real systems in the sense that biased narratives help indirectly support government extending its reach and power and often harming the East because citizens associate the East as bad and the government as needing to protect from them.

Stop trying to make fetch happen

Hooks presents a new way of looking for me, a new way of viewing cinema. She describes a look as being “confrontational, as gestures of resistance, challenges to authority (Hooks,247).” When viewing with an oppositional gaze, it’s obvious that mainstream cinema continues to be very problematic due to its unequal representation of minority groups, as well as its overrepresentation of wealthy white people.A cult classic, Mean Girls(2004) is a great example of this.

The dominant representation of this movie is a lighthearted comedy of a girl just trying to find her place in the hierarchy that is high school after being homeschooled her whole life. The protagonist, Cady has just moved from Africa to Illinois to attend public high school for the first time. She finds herself with the popular clique, the “plastics”, who are all white, wealthy and stereotypically pretty. Everyoneat school wants to be like or with Regina George, the leader of the Plastics. The problem with this dominant representation is that it portrays the white woman as more desirable than other races. This film also focuses a lot on race and separates groups based on their race and general personality. For example, the cafeteria is divided into groups like “cool Asians”, “nerdy Asians”, “unfriendly black hotties”, etc. They most often associate being popular with being wealthy and white.

This all becomes apparent when you view the film with an oppositional gaze with lens of race, gender and class. As previously discussed, all of the main characters that are viewed as appealing happen to be white.“…black female spectators have had to develop looking relations within a cinematic context that constructs our presence as absence, that denies the “body” of the black female so as to perpetuate white supremacy and with it a phallocentric spectatorship where the woman to be looked at and desired is “white” (Hooks, 250).” This is true for Mean Girls, with no people of color playing a significant role, and when there is a person of color they’re being stereotyped. Along with this, the females are shown are extremely sexualized. Regina and her clique are constantly obsessing about their image and weight, and in addition to this they put others down for not conforming to their definition of pretty.

Mulvey’s theory of male gaze is another dominant theme. She comes to the conclusion that “The woman displayed has functioned on two levels: as erotic object for the characters within the screen story, and as erotic object for the spectator within the auditorium (Mulvey, 33).” The plastics are constantly dressed to impress, with rules dedicated to not wearing sweatpants and wearing pink on Wednesdays. Apart from this, they are constantly being looked at by men and women, for pleasure and always under scrutiny. This act of being looked at is evident during the Halloween party and the talent show especially. They describe Halloween as being the one time of the year that you can dress like a “total slut” and no one judges. All the girls dress in lingerie and animal ears in an attempt to look sexy and appeal to the men at the party, at one point we can see two females kissing and two men cheering them on while they watch. This is an obvious example of Mulvey’s male gaze, using the women as an object for the male sexual pleasure. They also serve as an erotic object for the audience watching the film. During the talent show, the Plastics are dressed in sexy Santa outfits and dance in a way that can be observed as provocative. In this scene, a male character approaches a different girl and says, “damn, rather see you out there shaking your thang” outright objectifying and reducing her value as a person, a very common theme.

When viewing with a lens of economic class this film continues to show how problematic it really is. The fact that the plastics as all wealthy is made apparent to the audience from the very beginning and is meant to add to their appeal. It is pointed out that Gretchen’s father invented the toaster strudel and is extremely wealthy. We also quickly find out that Regina lives in a mansion and is not modest about it. Even Cady, although her house is more modest, lives very comfortable with two successful, educated parents. This is a concern when analyzing the movie because similar to the lack of women of color, the lack of lower class portrays the superiority of the wealthy. This wealth also aligns closely with the hierarchy of the high school, the more money you have the more popular you are despite your personality.

One might argue that this is just a comedy and harmless satire. However, this film is still relevant to this day and has had an influence on the youth. All films are very purposeful and thought out. “The filmmaker and the editor watch the collected footage over and over, deciding which portions of which takes they will assemble into the final cut of a movie. They do so with the same scrutiny that was applied to the actual filming. Even if something occurred on film without their planning for it, they make a conscious choice whether to include that chance occurrence. What was chance in the filming becomes choice in editing (Smith, 128).” Every detail of mean girls was scrutinized by multiple people who were all very aware of the messages that it was sending to its audience. All aspects from using the “R” word multiple time to the lack of colored cast members, along with all the other problematic factors the film portrays.

References:

Hooks, bell. (2002). “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators,” in Black Looks: Race and Representation.

Mulvey, Laura. (1975). “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16(3), 30.

Smith, Greg. (2001). “’It’s Just a Movie”: A Teaching Essay for Introductory Media Classes.” Cinema Journal 41(1), 127-134.

The outsiders within

The iconic pop idols Beyoncé and Jay Z challenge the white supremacist capitalist imperialist phallocentric gaze in their new music video “Apes**t”. When they take over what is considered one of the most prestigious institutions for fine Western art – Louvre – as their location for the music video, it clarifies the lyrics for the audience: “I can’t believe me made it”. The Carters show that they are holding the power now. They have taken over the elite space and challenge our white western male gaze and the stereotypical viewing of black people.

In this musicvideo, the Carters put themselves at the center of the scene, in the position of the “to be looked at-ness”. We as the spectators get the pleasure of looking at their beautiful powerful rebellious appearance. In big parts of the video, the couple is staged in front of the Mona Lisa painting with their backs turned against the painting as the opposite of what you would normally do in that space. By placing themselves in front of the Mona Lisa and not giving it any attention by looking at it, they are questioning what’s usually considered as the object of desire. They are challenging the notions of her value, and in the broader context, the value of the perspective and the gaze that all the art at the Louvre was made from – the white western patriarchal perspective.

At the same time, they also take on the role as the spectators as they constantly hold their eyes at the camera almost through the whole video.  In a lot of the clips, they stand in a static non-moving pose, as if it were a picture, the only thing moving is their eyes always following the camera. This video is a prime example of what Hook means when she says, “there is a power in looking” (Hooks 1996, 247). With their ice-cold gaze, they show their resistance – the resistance of the white supremacy and the claiming of a predominantly white space. They show their power by steering, calming black people’s right to gaze as a political commentary to what has always been the white man’s right.

“My mother taught me the importance of not just of being seen but of seeing myself,” said Beyoncé to the magazine Vogue in August this year. In this sentence, Beyoncé pinpoints Hooks notion of the black female spectator. The fact that the representation of black women in media has been so sexist and stereotypical has forced black women to look critically at what they have been shown. “Given the context of class exploitation, and racist and sexist domination, it has only been through resistance, struggle, reading, and looking “against the grain” that black women have been able to value our process of looking enough to publicly name it” (Hooks 1996,258). Beyoncé shows this theme in the clip where she and the troupe of dancers stand in front of the Jaques-Louis David’s The Consecration of the Emperor Napoleon and the Coronation of Empress Joséphine. Again, neither the dancers or Beyoncé ever takes a look at the classist painting behind them. By their dancing, they claim the spectators’ attention, while the painting again works as just a background. The black women, of different shades, marked by clothing fitted for their shade, holds hands and show their strength and resistance as a critique of their lack of representation within the western art canon.

As they celebrate their beauty trough amazing choreography and a majestic powerful appearance, they also present a resistance by challenging the stiff predominantly white museum institution and transform the Louvre to a marker for their own success. With this video, the Carters blur the lines of high culture and pop culture. The lyrics saying “We made it!” gives hints about the ambiguous aspect of their roles as outsiders within with an oppositional gaze ­– they spot the hypocrisy of the supremacist power dynamic, but also take advantage of it. This is not just a happy celebration of their own success, but an ironic identification. The short clips of real black lives, with the recreation of the NFL players kneeling, as a reference to police brutality stands in stark contrast to the couple rich, successful couple at Louvre. By being a part of both worlds, the black experience and being a part of the pop culture elite, it gives more power to their “fuck you” to the white supremacy.

The Carters seem like they are very conscious of their double standard of appreciating high art, but also being conscious of the historical inequality and repression that art represents. Their power lies in the counterpoint they represent by appropriation Louvre. Being a part of a marginalized and often stigmatized community, but also by being a part of the pop culture elite and acknowledge that, they have the power to both correct and remind us of the erasure of black lives and also potentially ordain a new status quo by establishing a new black elite.

 

Sources

Hooks, Bell. “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators”. New Jersey 1996

https://www.vogue.com/article/beyonce-september-issue-2018

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/beyonce-jay-z-louvre-apeshit-1304711

Group 11 Film Essay

Group #: 11

Group members: Amy Gunderson, Emmalee Mayer, Hinda Omar, Tim Zaitzeff, and Bemnet Kebede

Title: A Feminist Critique of Sexuality in Media: Orange is the New Black

Link: (Youtube took it down so I uploaded it to Google Drive but it has poor quality. I will bring a flash drive to class so it looks better.) https://drive.google.com/open?id=18-8Z7mmygrxatWtm-5uhQSX8XN5kFVWE

The Wachowski Sisters and Sense8: Maybe Good Lesbian Media Can Only Be Created by Lesbians

The first thing I thought when I read Kelly Kessler’s essay on Bound and how she gave the Wachowski sisters credit for creating a film that’s “titillating to homosexual men without threatening the heterosexual order” (Kessler, 14) was well, the Wachowski sisters are now both out as trans lesbians… so is their depiction of lesbianism really intended for heterosexual men at all?

I have chosen, in this case, to look at their popular Netflix television show, Sense8. (Cancelled too soon!!!!)  Namely, we are going to be looking at the relationship between Nomi Marks (a trans woman, PLAYED BY A TRANS WOMAN) and her girlfriend/fiancee/wife? (I haven’t seen the finale!) Amanita Caplan. I wanna look at their relationship and how the Wachowski’s representation of lesbianism has become more overtly just for queer women, since they are now publicly out as lesbians themselves, and I want to look at how their relationship subverts several stereotypes when it comes to race and gender.

What I really wanna do is take a look at the iconic first sex scene we see between Nomi and Amanita. The first scene that even shows the two of them at all. Amanita is on top of Nomi and they are both completely naked (the show makes no point of hiding anything). Then there is a finishing, and an iconic dropping of a rainbow strap on onto the ground. This scene is intense in its sexuality, and I believe so intentionally. So often with portrayals of trans women, there is an obsession with cis audiences to see what they look like naked, and the Wachowski sisters immediately take away that curiosity. Amanita is also on top in this situation, subverting the idea that the partner who has/who has had a phalice (Nomi, in this case) is the dominant one in the situation. This also adds another layer of nuance, as  Amanita is often black and black women are often seen in roles of sexual submission.

In this way, Sense8’s representation of lesbianism is fairly similar to Bound’s, using techniques that Kessler describes as, “a more explicit approach to sex which includes more graphic lesbian sex coupled with less graphic moments of eroticism” (Kessler, 15).

There are definitely some instances in this scene that might and definitely will cater to male heterosexual audiences. (The women are both thin and femme, there is the explicit showing of their bare tests, and there is explicitly no bottom half shown of Nomi, letting the heterosexual male audience pretend that, just for a minute, the woman getting fucked is cis) At the same time, however, I cannot help feel that with this new context that the Wachowski sisters are working in, as trans lesbians themselves, the depiction of this scene is intentionally provocative without a care about whether or not it’s going to alienate male heterosexual audiences.

What makes this couple for queer audiences however, I think is solidified not just in their sexual encounters, but in the other sorts of intimacies that Kessler discusses. Another stick out scene of the first episode involving Nomi and Amanita is when Amanita has just defended Nomi in a transphobic encounter and Nomi, tearing up afterwards, has her face cupped and kissed by Amanita multiple times before being brought into a tight hug. This scene, I truly believe, is meant for no one else but queer audiences. It’s such a sweet and tender moment of affection and intimacy between two women who love each other so fiercely, over a situation that heterosexual/cis audiences would never have to experience.

So while the Wachowski sisters may not have been out when they were creating Bound, I believe that they were still trying to portray what it is they portrayed in Sense8, an intimacy between two women that is meant primarily (and in some cases solely) to be recognizable by queer women. Sense8 just gets to be their queer swan song, where they freely are allowed to express their own experiences of being trans and queer on screen without any worry about having to please the cis and straight crowd.

Aren’t they just too stinkin cute? Image descrip: Amanita, a black woman with purple and pink colored dreads, is looking lovingly over at her girlfriend Nomi, a tall blonde woman wearing a plaid shirt, while they do dishes together.

Lets Transform Transformers!! (Media Example)

As a kid one of my favorite things to do each weekend was to huddle up with my siblings, and watch Transformers cartoon series. The show reached out to our childish imagination, with its robots transforming into cool, and colorful cars, jets, and sometimes even crazier things like a Star Wars battle ships. The cartoon series was born in Japan, and the first run took place from 1980 to 1993. The premise of the show was very simple, yet exciting; two different groups of robots transform into cool things and battle it out – the funny thing is that no side ever really won, so the show continued, and as we got older our focus shifted more towards different cartoon series as transformers started airing less in US, and finally stopped (this is before internet was available to many households, so online viewing was not possible).  In this essay I will be looking at Male Gaze, and Oppositional Gaze, and the evidence of how it is present in Hollywood, and the 2007 Block Buster – Transformers.

Now fast forward to 2000. Cartoon network decided that that they would pick up the series and remake it, giving it a new story, and a fresh start. By this time, I was in my late teens, a junior in high school, but I would still make time to enjoy the series. The first thing I noticed is that the series had lost its simple yet effective charm of good guys vs bad guys, each episode would focus on a human element that was missing from the Japanese original and added some sort of drama. I did not like the cartoon network version very much, so I stopped watching the series, and watched more of family guy/ south park. Sometime passed and while watching a movie in a theater with friends, we saw preview of what came to be the most illogical, stereotypical movie of 2007. This was off coarse Transformers the movie directed by Michael Bay.

While the idea was great and fun, the execution, and the direction the movie took was extremely poor, it almost seemed like it was written by a 13-year-old, and it was almost amazing to see that the movie was OK’d by the cast. Now to be fair it is not the worst movie I have seen, that honor would go to “The Room” but it was still extremely bad. To start with the movie has lots of explosions, so if you are a fan of fireworks or feel like you missed the 4^th of July fireworks in your city just watch the first transformers movie, and your urge for watching fireworks will be satisfied for the next few years. Now let’s talk about more serious things in the movie – the Characters, especially the female cast of the movie. In my humble opinion I can’t seem to find out what motived them to sign up for this movie, after they read the script.

Alongside Sam we have two important (but not important, you will see why) female characters in the movie. The first is Mikaela (Megan Fox), and second is Sam’s mom (Julie white, a traffic actor who is not given much to work with). While Megan Fox has potential for good acting, the big issue in this movie is that the director reduces her role to be eye candy for other characters in the movie, and the audience. Transformers uses Mikaela as an object of Male Gaze (Laura Mulvey – Visual Pleasure, and Narrative Cinema). If we examine Mikaela’s introduction scene, we notice that the we don’t really go into depth to build her character up e.g. what is she going to school for? What are her future plans after high school? What does she want to do in her life? Why is she not given any intellectual character development? None of those questions are ever brought up, but instead our focus becomes how well she knows cars, and how well she knows sexual relationships. In her introduction scene the camera pans over her sweating body, starting from stomach, panning over her legs, and finally her breast, and face – I kid you not, but this scene is uncomfortably long, maybe a 2-3 minutes. This theme continues in the movie, because Sam’s whole family comments on Mikaela and her looks, but even the robots in the movie are commenting, which seems a bit odd since they don’t have any concept of attraction or gender attraction, but yes, the movie goes there, because for some reason it thinks it needs to (Robotic Gaze? I am not sure, as we also see a little robot trying to hump Mikaela’s leg for no apparent reason). We notice that after Sam graduate’s college, he is going to a 4-year university while his girl-friend has no goals afterwards, none that she mentions, or the movie ever brings up. Mikaela is just there to be saved by Sam, first by her weird boy-friend, second by the hordes of transformers that are invading the earth.  When in trouble Mikaela screams from scene to scene and is not able to take decisions on her own unless Sam or the autoboots (good transformers) are there to make the choice for her. Sam’s mon the only other important female character and is also given zero depth to her character, her main purpose in the movie is to make jokes, that aren’t very funny, she is very one dimensional, and shown how a cool mom figure should behave, but nothing she does is cool – e.g. commenting on Sam’s girlfriend, laughing at her dogs having sex, getting high and making wise cracking jokes. The things are funny, but again they make the character look very stupid, because besides these things she is helpful to the movie in any other way. Male gaze is extremely evident in this movie, misogynistic themes are present all over the place.

Another thing that a critical viewer will notice is the lack of black female characters. The movie has no black female characters at (Bell Hooks – Oppositional Gaze) – since there is a lack of female representation oppositional gaze can still be applied to women in this film. The issue is that how can female audiences of color connect themselves to this movie? Well they can’t – at all, due to the lack of representation – they are not represented and missing. Most people of color in this movie serve as comic relief characters, but that’s a topic large enough to be discussed by itself. We see that (Mulvey) that the male protagonist is manipulating the plot while the female alongside is just along for the ride and accommodate his needs.

Overall the lack of strong female characters, and their representation in this transformers movie has led to be more critical of the series, and as new transformers movies have been released in the past few years, which I have also seen due to requests from friends, and family members the issues from the first movie are exacerbated, and criticized by the audience, and reviewers. Even though the Transformers movie premise is a fun and exciting one, I think the director should take a different approach. If the movie wants to focus on drama, it should give its male, and female characters stronger, more intellectual character development. The main protagonist could be a strong, independent female/ female of color. (like the one from the fallout game series, or like the one from the newest tomb raider game). I also think that the film deserves a new director, as Michael Bay has made the issues worse in the later iterations of the movie. Nothing against Mr. Bay, but sometimes it is helpful to apply new ideas instead of rehashing old ones. Come on Hollywood “Just Do it” – and yes I am not quoting Nike, its Shia LaBeouf.

 

Material used:

Laura Mulvey – Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (Male Gaze)

Bell Hooks – The Oppositional Gaze, Black Female Spectators

Dear Diary, the focus on appearance and too-be-looked-at-ness in my ascent to royalty

Dear Diary, the focus on appearance and too-be-looked-at-ness in my ascent to royalty

Princess Diaries 2 is iconic for its finishing scene with Amelia Mignonette Grimaldi Thermopolis Renaldo, prinCESS of Genovia, also called Mia, solidifying her power and equal rights as a woman by rejecting the antiquated law that states she needs to marry a man in order to rule. However, getting to that moment was not without its trials found in its counterpart, the original Princess Diaries, which focused on Mia’s appearance, to-be-looked-at-ness, and the threat of castration

The princess lessons given to Mia from Queen Clarisse were on the surface to encourage and develop manners and etiquette, however, much of the traditions and techniques taught are rooted in toxic gender roles and expectations. For example, the crossing of the ankles (a princess must not cross her knees) makes sure the woman takes up minimal space, a visual manifestation of the preferred minimal role women take in politics. It acts as a maneuver to shield the genitals. This can be tied to Mulvey’s psychoanalytic assertion that not having a penis is construed as a danger to males, “a woman’s lack of a penis implies a threat of castration” (Mulvey, 2002), therefore the tradition of crossing the ankles diminishes that threat.

Another lesson, learning to communicate with the fans, curtails the amount of time a woman can talk. This practice stems from when women were to be “seen, not heard,” and women had to be creative with their resources to adequately communicate.

Furthermore, the fixation with the physical appearance of women and the associated ability to rule is prominently problematic in this film. During the first meeting at the embassy, the queen immediately has Mia spin around to be assessed and visually dissected. This gives the audience permission to look and judge the appearance of Mia the first of a series of to-be-looked-at moments in the film. The queen noting with disapproval, remarks on Mia’s complexion, hairstyle, neck; complete with a backhanded compliment, “lovely eyes hidden beneath bushy eyebrows.” The focus on appearance is exacerbated by the makeover scene, where her original appearance literally induced a scream from Paulo and is comforted with “don’t worry, in Pablo’s hands, you will be beautiful.” Her curly hair and bushy eyebrows, portrayed as jokes, are “fixed” resulting in straight hair, groomed eyebrows, and makeup.

Enhancing or even changing features is not a bad thing or unfeminist; it allows a person to more fully look how they feel and provide confidence and authenticity. However, these changes were not initiated by Mia, but were demanded upon her so she fit more into the image of a ruler. “Better, much better,” is the Queen’s seal of approval. While not necessarily erotic, pandering to society’s view as to what constitutes as beautiful in order to be an adequate display for the royal family increases Mia’s “to-be-looked-at-ness,” as coined by Mulvey (Mulvey, 38.) When looking at herself in the mirror, Mia is not joyful or eager about her new look, but rather looks into the mirror apprehensively and a bit lost.

 

The paparazzi presents its own challenges. One of the first questions Mia gets from the press after her momentous ascent into royalty is what her solution for pimples are, again focus primarily on her appearance. Moreover, the paparazzi’s goal for the beach party is to catch Mia in a vulnerable position, both kissing a boy, Josh, and while changing out of her swimsuit.

We do get a victory when Mia reacts to the mistreatment she received from her crush, Josh, a boy who has ignored her up until her royal status was revealed. Previous to her role as princess, she either stared longing at him from afar or sheepishly looked away when their paths’ crossed. However, after his manipulation at the beach party, she invokes the Oppositional Gaze by staring at him with intense disdain and drills him in the genitals with a softball in gym class. After standing up to his manipulation and careless treatment to her, Mia begins to find her inner confidence to lead and rule, emulating Hooks assertion “the ability to manipulate one’s gaze in the face of structures of domination that would contain it, opens up the possibility of agency” (Hooks, 248).     

 

Hooks, bell. (2002). “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators,” in Black Looks: Race and Representation.

Mulvey, Laura (1975) ” Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen.

Call Me By Your Name…& Tell Me What You Really Think of this Film!

 

Call Me By Your Name is an excellent example of the failings of New Queer Cinema as outlined by Leung. Ostensibly dealing with the gay relationship between a 17 year old (Elio) and a 24 year old (Oliver) , the film is far from a realistic representation of gay youth and relationships, without even addressing the age gap. The book, on which the film was based, was written by a straight man. Therefore, it seems impossible even from the start that the book and film could capture an authentic gay experience. The film itself is clearly more concerned with aesthetic and visual appeal of the story than characterization, and prefers long, lush silences to real character building. Leung highlights the commodification of New Queer Cinema, which is a concept clearly present in CMBYN: “The apparent increase in tolerance for and visibility of queer communities merely reflects a ‘virtual equality’ that masks the absence of genuine and fundamental systemic changes. It is precisely under this climate of ‘virtual equality’ that New Queer Cinema’s once outlawed and marginalized representations of sexuality become transformed into palatable, even marketable, commodities” (Leung 2).

 

The film’s callous portrayal of a 17 year old and 24 year old not only plays into stereotypes of the predatory gay man, but also presents a titillating gay story through the age gap and general “uniqueness” of the queer storyline. Rather than developing strong gay characters with a realistic relationship, this film seeks to draw people in with the main gay relationship but then does it absolutely no justice. The movie focuses far more on the story itself than on either of the 2 main characters. The viewer gets no insight into what would seem to be the most critical aspect of the movie: Elio and Oliver’s relationship with their own homosexuality. Without any examination of their relationship towards and level of acceptance of their own sexuality, the film lacks any kind of moving, realistic portrayal of queerness.

 

The gay relationship present in the film is an exact representation of the commodifying that Leung writes about; the storyline is packaged in beautiful scenery, a lack of character building between the two gay characters, and a tragic ending all show this presentation of homosexuality as a unique film trope, making the 2 main characters and their sexuality actually more of a forethought than the main aspect of the film.

^^That’s how I felt watching the movie…!

T.E. Lawrence; War Hero or White Savior Culture Vulture? The White Savior Complex in Lawrence of Arabia

Awarded 7 Oscars, including Best Picture, the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture, (IMDB) and boasting a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Lawrence of Arabia is regarded as one of the greatest and most important films in cinematic history. Released in 1962, Lawrence of Arabia has since endured ever-changing social and political landscapes, which inevitably impact the ways in which the film is interpreted. More recently, the film has been dubbed an “Anti-imperialist, Orientalist Epic,” (Caton) recognizing it’s temporally progressive critique on colonialism while also indulging in Orientalist ways of knowing. The protagonist, a WWI era British officer T.E. Lawrence is chosen to oversee the Arabs’ revolt against the Ottoman Empire, as he is well educated in the region and the Arabic language. The zealous T.E Lawrence soon becomes consumed by Arab culture, abandoning parts of his English identity while retaining his sense of western, white superiority over his Arab peers.

The white savior complex in film is the narrative of a white person rescuing people of color (POC) from their experienced oppression. This narrative is commonly coupled with the stereotyping and flattening of POC characters, suggesting that the white character gives breadth and totality to the POC characters. These themes are alluded to in the articles written by Gignac and McMahon about The Revenant, as they comment on the POC presence in the film being defined by “tired tropes,” (McMahon) and how the “indigeneity seems ultimately subservient to the white protagonist.” (Gignac) The similar use of stereotypes and tropes is explicit in Lawrence of Arabia’s portrayal of Arabs. The film reduces their characters by situating them in a subordinate, auxiliary role within Lawrence’s life and the movie. It is understood that without Lawrence’s aryan leadership, the Arabs wouldn’t stand a chance against the Turks. Lawrence becomes responsible for the critical thinking and leadership necessary to lead an army, as the Arabs could not handle this themselves.

Like a buffet, Lawrence chooses the things he wants from Arab culture, while still retaining his sense of superiority and preeminence over the “cruel and barbarous” Arabs. There is internal dissonance in the fact that Lawrence so desperately wants to belong to a culture he feels is below him in many ways. In the end, Lawrence realizes the fault in his role-playing, feels shameful in his empty acculturation, adding a dimension that is not always seen in the white savior narrative. Although he comes to some sort of revelation, the white savior narrative is still prevalent and important in understanding the impact of this international epic.

The othering of POC, especially those from the Eastern and Middle Eastern parts of the world is a systemic process of knowledge and power that has been embedded in global society for decades. Although it is more critical of imperialism and colonialism than other media of its time, it still contains orientalist coding through the portrayal of Arab and other middle eastern people’s as uncivilized and backward through their depicted inadequate strategic thinking and problem-solving. Because of its high stature and characterization as one of the first International Films (in regards to international production, filming, actors, etc), it should be scrutinized for is impact on international implications of knowledge and power. Greg Smith discusses the deliberate intention behind film production and states, “all cultural products carry cultural meaning.” (Smith, 132) Lawrence of Arabia was purposefully created and edited this way and therefore gives license to its critics. It is important to revisit Lawrence of Arabia and similar movies with each decade to further understand its role in the early and modern postcolonial world

 

Works Cited

Caton, Steven. “Lawrence of Arabia.” Oxford Index, 1999, doi:10.1525/california/9780520210820.001.0001.

Gignac, Julien. “The Revenant’s White-Saviour Complex.” The Globe and Mail, The Globe and Mail, 16 May 2018, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/the-revenants-white-saviour-complex/article28320619/.

“Lawrence of Arabia.” IMDb, IMDb.com, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056172/plotsummary?ref_=tt_stry_pl.

McMahon, Ryan. “Indigenous People’s Stories Need More than Just Leonardo DiCaprio’s Speech.” Vice, Vice, 11 Jan. 2016, http://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kwx53z/indigenous-peoples-stories-need-more-than-just-leonardo-dicaprios-speech.

Smith, Greg M. “‘It’s Just a Movie’: A Teaching Essay for Introductory Media Classes.” Cinema Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, 2001, pp. 127–134., doi:10.1353/cj.2001.0025.

Ariana says “thank u, next” to penis

Following the ending of her iconic and highly publicized engagement with Pete Davidson, Ariana Grande released “thank u, next,” the first single from her forthcoming album. The lyrics address her past relationships, and what she’s learned from them. The second verse explains that she’s chosen to focus on her relationship with herself. “Plus, I met someone else. We havin’ better discussions. I know they say I move on too fast. But this one gon’ last. ‘Cause her name is Ari. And I’m so good with that” (Grande). She also explains the things she’s learned from herself, like love, patience, and how to handle pain. This portion of the song can be applied to Mulvey’s concept of the symbolic, and women’s lack of phallus.

“…The female figure poses a deeper problem. She also connotes something that the look continually circles around but disavows: her lack of a penis, implying that a threat of castration and hence unpleasure. Ultimately, the meaning of woman is sexual difference, the absence of the penis is visually ascertainable, the material evidence on which is based the castration complex essential for the organization of entrance to the symbolic order and the law of the father. Thus the woman as icon, displayed for the gaze and enjoyment of men, the active controllers of the look, always threatens to evoke anxiety it originally signified” (Mulvey, 35). Ariana choosing to partake in a relationship with herself, a woman, goes against societal norms, and comes back to the fear of women’s lack of a phallus.

Grande, Ariana. “Thank u, next.” Thank U, Next. Republic. 2018. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEhZAHZQyf4

Mulvey, Laura. (1975). “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16(3), 35.