recent tracks:

Part III: Movies/Subtlety

First up this time, a diatribe on subtlety in mainstream movies.

That Crash won the Oscar for best picture threw me for a loop. I'm not one who carries much respect for the Academy, but I just kept remembering that feeling I'd had watching Crash--that of being bludgeoned over the head. Not in the same way that one watching Requiem for a Dream might feel battered by its anti-drug message, but rather the same way that an adult attending a DARE presentation might be. The movie required no interpretation. The dialogue and the interplay between characters constantly banged home the message that there's racism out there, and it's bad.

It is my opinion, unfounded by any data save my own life experience, that this reflects a trend in greater society of disregarding subtlety. While I am a fan of directness and honesty, there are some issues that hardline answers don't completely address. In retrospect Crash probably does cover the racism issue with a little more complexity than I give it credit for, as most of the characters end up confronting their own assumptions, but I think nevertheless that the movie seemed more interested in noting the symptoms than getting to the root of the disease. Ryan Phillippe's character, for example, is a cop who has a problem with his partner's racism. But, lo and behold, it turns out that Phillipe's character isn't such a saint after all. What, though, is the root of the character's racism? Who knows? How might he address it? Who knows? Each of the characters is more or less a stereotype forced to come to terms with him- or herself--the complexity all rests in the situations.

As to the greater trend, I begin with Hollywood. Past and present stars from Harry Belafonte to George Clooney frequently produce political soundbytes which most often smack of sensationalism and, rather, than promoting sensitive thought on complex issues deserving of careful consideration, promote polarization. When one hears Mr. Belafonte label the President as the greatest terrorist in the world today, the conservative tendency is to give Mr. Belafonte the label of liberal loon, while the liberal might say, "right on!" without giving any thought to the substance of Mr. Belafonte's claim. (Here, incidentally, my main sources are blogs and talk radio.)

If such soundbytes were limited to Hollywood, then I'd likely dismiss the issue as one of little consequence. But the trend exists in politics as well. Few representatives take the time or effort to present nuanced positions to their constituents; President Bush is probably the worst violator of this policy. We are either with him or against him, hawks or unpatriotic, and Al Qaeda = Afghanistan = Saddam = Iraq = Iran. (I've provided examples for various of these assertions in the past, so they have basis in actual press releases and speeches). To make the claim that American involvement in the middle east might serve to fuel terrorism, particularly when many prisoners are abused and denied basic rights, is nevertheless to sell out America to the enemy. But here I focus too much on the party with which I disagree; the Dubai Ports deal provides ample support for the same proposition, this time with the democrats serving as the greatest offenders. In order to look tough on national security, the democrats rose up in anger when the President promoted the deal that would have sold management of several American ports to a *gasp* Arab country. No matter the specific circumstances of the deal--this is Us giving a key to our national security directly over to Them.

And now we're back to the movies, with the Democrats, the great supporters of equal opportunity now opposing a deal simply because the other party was from the middle east. Crash. Who knows whether a nuanced discussion would have yielded a different result; all I can say is that subtlety was never a part of the deal. It was Us and Them all the way.

Hopefully the trend is reversible; I'd love to hear a politician publicly present a non-hard line position, and to see Capote win best picture. Let's hope the first isn't as impossible as the second.

That said, I saw another hit-you-over-the-head movie this weekend that I quite loved. V for Vendetta was basically made with me in mind as the ideal consumer--a viewer who places significant value on style and message (even if my beloved subtlety was cast out the window from the start). V is a government experiment gone wrong, leading the British people to cast down the fascist government which has clawed its way into power in the aftermath of some major international conflict. He waxes poetic, displaying a particularly soft spot for alliteration and Shakespeare. He also wears a Guy Fawkes mask in commemoration of the man who once tried to blow up Parliament. Sure enough, V has more than just stirring an oppressed people into action, possessing among his arsenal a knowledge of homemade explosives. Some have questioned the wisdom of releasing this movie in the face of international terrorism, but in my opinion now was the perfect time to release the film, if nothing else as a demonstration of how a government who chips away at liberties bit by bit may eventually end up destroying them completely, its subjects acquiescing all the way. The acting is excellent, although I think John Hurt might take his Hitler analogy a little too far, and the violence in the film is presented in an unusually ambiguous manner--not glorified, as one might expect, but as a choice laden with consequences both positive and negative. Anyway, it's definitely worth a looksee. ***1/2.

Now I'm really hungry. If I have time before class, I'll provide Part IV: On Law, with a synopsis of Community Land Trusts and the results of my Property midterm. Stay tuned!

(But one last thing before I go: Summer shared this article on the administration's suppression of scientific evidence for global warming. Oh, censorship...)