#objectionable to be truly sympathetic...
Text
If music blares and no one cares who your unruly heart loves
It's time for prom, only Julie is less than enthusiastic about it.
Read it on AO3 HERE!
Word Count: ~3.5k
This is my entry for the Free Day of @polyshipweek 2023!
I decided to write a prom story as my beloved @daintyduck99 created another gorgeous moodboard that you can see below that truly inspired me. I really hope you enjoy!
Julie scowled at the posters plastering the hallways of Los Feliz High. It seemed every inch was determined to remind her that prom was coming up. Once upon a time, Julie was like most every girl, fantasizing about going to prom, dancing under the twinkle lights, wearing the beautiful dress, having a real night to remember to cap off her high school experience. But now…
Well now she could care less because the stupid administration would never let her go with who she wanted.
Not that either of her boyfriends had asked her, mind you, and Principal Lessa was usually understanding, but given a small group of teachers had put up a stink about same sex partners going (which was struck down when the PTA was lead by a couple of lesbians) she doubted they would be so understanding about a threesome of partners.
She slumped off to the cafeteria, still making a face even though it was pizza day, the least objectionable school lunch. Her mood only soured when she got to her table to find Kayla gushing over how her boyfriend Lance asked her to prom just last period.
“Hey, what’s with the gloom cloud?” Flynn asked, offering her a ranch dipped carrot stick.
“Prom.”
“Since when are you anti-prom?” Carrie asked. “Just last year you told me you couldn’t wait to shop for a dress, as long as it wasn’t as voluminous as your quinceañera one.”
“That was when my date wouldn’t cause a stink.”
Flynn and Carrie shared a sympathetic smile. “I mean, you could still go. Do one dance with Luke, one with Reggie, then let them dance together. I know it’s not quite the same but…”
“We couldn’t get pictures done of all three of us, or have a dance all together, or even really share a table without one of us getting asked where our date was,” Julie grumbled.
“You were the one who didn’t want to advertise you were dating the guys until after we graduated,” Carrie argued. “You wanna keep it on the down low, you can’t exactly go to prom all together.”
“You know why we didn’t tell people,” Julie said. Carrie lowered her eyes, because she did know. Heck, when Julie started dating both boys, none outside of the three of them was supposed to know, but over time they had shared the news with their friends and explained why they had hidden it. There had been some hurt feelings, but in the end, they had all understood. “But I guess I didn’t really think about what I was giving up to be with them. It’s worth it, more than. They're the loves of my life-but… I still wish we could just go to prom.”
“Who’s going to prom now?” Reggie said as he sat down beside Julie, passing her an apple and snagging her celery sticks.
“Kayla and Lance,” Flynn supplied, sending Julie a i got you look.
“He prom-posed right in front of the whole history class,” Carrie said.
“Prom-posed?” Luke asked as he took the space on Julie’s other side, swapping her milk for a diary free one. Gosh, what would she do without them? Julie had been so deep in thought half of what had been on her tray would have gone uneaten. She gave them both a grateful smile before explaining.
“It’s when a guy makes a big production over asking a girl to prom, like it’s an over the top proposal.”
“That’s a thing?” Reggie asked between bites of celery. “Why?”
Julie shrugged in response. “I don’t see why you can’t just… ask you know? I personally would be mortified if anyone did that to me.”
“You don’t want some over the top spectacle?” Luke asked, though his voice was a little tense.
“God no,” Julie said, screwing up her face. “It’s embarrassing, and it puts too much pressure on the askee to say yes in the moment. I’m good with something private and simple. For prom, or anything beyond that.”
“Good to know,” Reggie said with a wink. Flynn looked at where Luke was frantically and subtly waving off the members of the marching band who had just entered the space. They looked a little put out, but retreated, and all Flynn could do was stifle a giggle. Looks like Julie’s himbos weren’t as dense as she thought about asking her-they just had no idea how.
She might just need to step in and help-it spelled disaster if she didn’t.
~
First things first was to confirm that the guys were actually planning on taking Julie to prom.
Scratch that-the first thing for Flynn to do was find out if they could.
She was sure she saw Mrs. Pearson the secretary suppress a groan when she saw Flynn, but buzzed Principal Lessa all the same, then waved her back. “Miss Taylor, what can I do for you?”
“It’s about prom.”
The woman’s shoulders sagged. “Look, you know I had nothing to do with the whole no same sex partners thing right? I fought long and hard to ensure you could go with your girlfriend.”
“I know,” Flynn replied. Principal Lessa was a lot of things, but a homophobe wasn’t one of them. Sure, she wasn’t the faculty supervisor for the GSA, but she knew the woman also drove around with a Pride sticker on her bumper year round. “This is concerning Julie.”
“Oh, I know you agreed to DJ, but if her band or Dirty Candi want to do a few numbers, I won’t say no.”
Flynn grinned at that, knowing neither band would turn it down. Okay, Luke might, but she had a feeling the rest of the Phantoms would outvote him. “I’ll pass the offer along. But no, this is about her date.”
“Does she want to bring someone from a different school? I already made allowances for that. As long as they’re of age, they’re welcome.”
“It’s more so the number of dates she wants to bring,” Flynn explained.
“Ah.” The principal folded her hands. “Misters Patterson and Peters I presume?” When Flynn shot her a bewildered look, the woman smiled. “Please, I’m not blind. The way they all look at each other? The little stolen touches? They aren’t as subtle as they think they are.”
Flynn laughed a little at that, they really weren’t. Plus the number of people who knew was growing larger every day, as all their friends knew, as well as Julie’s family. Not sure if Luke’s family was in the know, but Flynn was sure they suspected. She was positive Reggie’s folks didn’t know, but she also knew that the second he turned 18 just a few weeks away, right after they graduated, Reggie was getting out of that house and into Victoria’s spare room. Heck, she was fairly certain he practically lived there now. They all had a running bet that the three of them would be shacking up together by the fall anyways, but no one wanted Reggie living with his awful family any longer than he needed to. That was a big part of why Julie wanted their relationship secret-who knows what Linus Peters would do if he found out.
“So can they go together?” she asked, inching forward in her chair, a hopeful, pleading expression on her face.
Principal Lessa sighed. “Miss Taylor, I wish I could say yes, but the teachers who tried to stonewall you would definitely say something, and I don’t think I have it in me to fight another battle for the sake of three students.”
Flynn sagged in her chair. “That sucks.”
“However…” Principal Lessa said, a sly smirk on her face, “I can tell the photographer to look the other way if any students want group photos done, I’m sure Carrie would love an official photo done with the Dity Candi girls and their dates. And I can distract a few chaperones during the couples dances if Julie wanted to dance with both her dates at the same time. Someone has to ensure the punch isn’t spiked right?”
“You’re crafty, I like it.”
“Well thank you.” The woman smiled at Flynn. “You’re a good friend to Julie. I’ll try to get the more understanding teachers to keep an eye out during the dance, so go tell her it’s okay, but I am totally looking the other way.”
Flynn gave her thanks and ran off. She had some himbos to find.
~
DJ Flynn: Yo, boy band, you and cowboy gonna ask Jules to prom?
Guitar Hero: Well yeah, we had a whole plan and everything!
BassBabe: No, you had a plan. I told you Julie wouldn’t want a big thing!
Guitar Hero: Come on, you know she loves a good serenade!
BassBabe: Not in front of the whole school.
DJFlynn: Look, Lessa said it’s ‘okay’ for you guys to go together, and she has your backs as much as she can, so figure out something a little more low key and ask our girl out okay? She’s super bummed about this whole thing.
Guitar Hero: Already working on Plan B
BassBase: That means he’s writing a song.
DJFlynn: 🙄 Of course he is. Oh, Lessa says you can have 3 song slots if you want, Carrie and the girls are getting the same offer.
Guitar Hero: Prom band? Seriously?
BassBabe: Alex and I say yes. Plus then Julie has to go.
DJ Flynn: Exactly what I was thinking. Now go ask her!
~
“You gonna tell me where we’re going?” Julie asked as her boyfriends led her by her hands.
“Nope, you’re just gonna have to trust us,” Luke said.
“We’ve got you Julie, always,” Reggie promised.
“I would feel better about that if I weren’t blindfolded,” Julie retorted.
“We’re almost there, just one more step down,” Luke instructed.
Then the blindfold was pulled from her face, and Julie gasped. They were in her backyard, but it had been transformed. The trellis and trees were covered in fairy lights, with soft candles flickering around on the table. She could hear music playing in the background, a romantic ballad that she wouldn’t suspect the type of thing either of her boyfriends would listen to.
And there, on the cobblestone terrace, were scattered flower petals and a series of tealights spelling out one question: Prom?
“Oh,” Julie said. “You’re really asking me to prom?”
“Of course boss,” Luke replied. “Did you think we wouldn’t?”
“I-I guess I didn’t think you would, given we were keeping things a secret. Reggie what if…”
“Ssh, it’s okay darlin’,” Reggie soothed her. “I’m going to stay with Tia from now on. Why wait until my birthday?”
“So… no more hiding?” Julie clarified.
“I already told my folks, apparently they guessed long ago. They aren’t thrilled, but honestly I think they’re more pissed I’m putting off school to get our music out there,” Luke said.
“I don’t care what my parents think,” Reggie said firmly. “They haven’t cared about me or my life in ages. MeeMaw knows, she’s cool with it, and Julie, your family has practically adopted me, so I know they approve.”
“So prom?” Julie asks. “We can really go?”
“Lessa got our back and a contract for us to do a few songs,” Luke assured her. “So, you wanna be our date?”
Julie grinned and rushed into their arms, kisses being exchanged left and right as she agreed. “Surprised you didn’t prom-pose via song,” she said to Luke.
“He nearly did, I convinced him to keep workshopping it for a few years down the line,” Reggie said with a wink. Luke scowled good naturedly but pulled him in for a kiss, and Julie just shook her head. She could wait a few years to hear the song honestly.
But she already knew her answer for when she did.
Later, her lips swollen, the yard cleaned, and a song in her heart, Julie checked her phone and laughed.
DJ Flynn: Did the himbos ask you yet? We need to get you a dress ASAP
Ju Ju Bean: They did. We can hit up the shops tomorrow. Lunch is on me because I’m sure you had multiple hands in this.
DJ Flynn: Girl I didn’t do anything, but I’ll never turn down free food!
Julie shook her head. She knew Flynn would never tell her the part she played, but she felt a rush of fondness for her friend for making her dreams a reality.
~
Prom night was warm and lovely as Reggie pulled up to Luke’s house. Beeping the horn and grinning as Luke appeared at the door, and was halfway down the drive when his mom called him back. Placing three boxes into his hands and pressing a kiss to his cheek. Luke gave her a warm smile and pecked her forehead, then was off again. “Hey babe,” he said, sliding into the truck and pulling Reggie into a much more indecent kiss. “God I love that I can do that whenever I want now.”
“D-do you guys resent me for making you keep us a secret?” Reggie asked as he drove off, eyes resolutely on the road.
“What? God no!” Luke said vehemently. “Reg, babe, you did what you had to do to stay safe and keep a roof over your head. A few months of not having to share our relationship with the world and have you all to ourselves? That was nothing. Julie and I know you’re worth more than being public. But it is nice that we can be now without worrying.”
Reggie couldn’t help but smile at that answer. “I love you, you know that?”
“Yeah yeah, you big sap, love you too. Now, let’s go get our girl,” Luke replied, the both of them dabbing their eyes of moisture as they hopped out of the truck.
Julie flounced down the stairs as the bell rang, brimming with excitement and nerves. “Papi!” she called. “They guys are here!”
“If you three think you’re not getting pictures done before you go you’re insane!” Ray called back.
“Camera is on your desk!” Carlos yelled from the living room.
“Gracias mijo!” Ray called, smiling as he emerged with the camera seconds later, opening the door. “Well well boys, don’t we clean up nice.”
And boy did they!
Reggie was in a sleek suit, the jacket and vest a shiny red satin covered with little black butterflies. Luke was in a navy blue floral number, though Julie was willing to bet he’d lose the jacket mid way through the night, as he had already confessed to getting Flynn to tailor the shirt to be sans sleeves. They saw her and Julie giggled as their mouths opened slightly.
She gave a small twirl, showing off her white high tops covered in hearts, the sparkly skirt of her purple dress flying around her, and the light catching in all the rhinestones bedecking the leather jacket that had once been her mother’s. “Well, will I do?’
“Damn boss, you look good,” Luke said with a low whistle, only giving Ray a sheepish grin when the man lowered his eyes on him.
Reggie fared not much better as he stammered out a soft wow. He then reached out to the porch, pulling in three heart shaped balloons. “For the pictures,” he explained.
Luke got the three boxes his mom had shoved at him-boutonnieres for them all. They had gone with dahlias, Julie’s favourite flower in a nice white colour. Julie swore there was something in her eye when the boys slid hers over her wrist, but it must have been catching because their eyes were equally glassy as she pinned the flowers to their jackets.
Ray took as many pictures as he possibly could, capturing every moment, and making sure he got lots of pictures of the three of them together-”Just in case the one at the school won’t,” he said.
“Thanks papi,” Julie said, pulling him in for a hug, and Reggie stole the camera to capture a few shots of her and her dad, as well as the one that Carlos would allow before they had to hit the road.
They went off to eat, happy enough to get burgers from a local diner, not needing anything fancy. Their friends all met up with them there, everyone looking mighty fine indeed. Alex blushed when Reggie gave him an overexaggerated whistle, but Willie came and spun him, and that made him look infinitely pleased in his sheer shirt and blush pink jacket that somehow completely complimented Willie’s black suit covered in golden marigolds.
Carrie was in a slinky sparkly pink number with a high leg slit while Flynn’s turquoise tea length dress shimmered every time she moved. All the Candis were in theri signature colours, but Julie silently thought their dates lacked a bit of creativity given they were in simple black suits with ties to match their date’s dress.
Finally it was time to head to prom, which was being held at a local hotel. The space was awash in soft purple lighting, with a photo backdrop of shimmery silver fabric, and disco balls hung from the ballroom. They spent quite a bit of time getting photos done, and Julie pulled Flynn in for a hug when she found out the girl had convinced Lessa to allow group photos, and that she had also booked them a good chunk of time.
So no one said anything when Julie, Luke, and Reggie stepped up for their turn, doing a mix of corny and sweet poses. But Julie liked the last one best where her boys were kissing each of her cheeks, the joy evident on her face.
Dirty Candi had agreed to do their first song at the beginning of the night, and the floor was packed as they did their thing, Carrie looking radiant up on the stage. Julie giggled as she bounced and twirled with her boys, then over to Alex and Willie, then to Flynn before going back to a flailing Luke and Reggie who were doing some overly complicated swing maneuver in the silliest fashion possible.
Flynn stepped up to the DJ booth next, playing a few songs, and Julie knew it would be their turn soon, so she dragged the boys backstage to get ready. They rocked out, and gosh Julie had never felt so alive. Here she was, at prom, playing with her band, getting to dance with her boyfriends, and it felt like she was at the top of the world. Nothing could wipe the smile off her face.
They kept dancing and playing throughout the night, and though she wanted to, at every slow song, Julie would only pull one of the guys in, or let them dance together. She knew Principal Lessa had told Flynn she would try to keep the less liberal staff members at bay, but Julie didn’t want to push it.
Finally, it was coming towards the end of the night. Flynn glared at her. “Girl I did not go to Lessa just so you would have to pick and choose, go dance with your boys. I’ll mess with anyone who even tries looking at you funny.”
Julie bit her bottom lip, but then she saw Luke and Reggie’s hopeful faces, and she let them pull her towards the dance floor. Sandwiched between them as they swayed, Julie closed her eyes, feeling oh so safe and loved here in their arms. She could hear a few murmurs and whispers but when she opened her eyes, she didn’t see any hateful or confused looks. Only soft smiles, and… money changing hands?
God were they so obvious her classmates had been betting on them? Julie hoped someone she knew won the pot, and tittered to herself when she saw Willie shove a rather large stack of bills into his jacket. Good for him.
Julie didn’t pay attention to who won prom queen, but she was a little surprised to see that Carrie hadn’t run for it. “Eh, I have plenty of tiaras,” the blonde said. “Christina deserves it.”
Julie looked to where the perky cheerleader was dancing with a guy Julie swore was in the D&D club and played in a local metal band they had crossed paths with a few times… but shrugged. They looked super cute together, and honestly Julie was happy enough dancing on the sidelines with her own princes.
It was late by the time prom was over, and they headed back out to the truck. Sure they could have gotten a room, but Ray had trusted them to come home, even offering to let them sleep (just sleep mind you) together, and they weren’t about to betray his trust after all the support and love that he had given them.
So Julie ended prom night in her cozy jammies, snuggled up between her two boys, soft smiles on all their faces as they yawned. “So, prom all it was cracked up to be boss?” Luke asked.
“It was lovely, thanks for making it such a nice night,” Julie replied.
“Anything for you darlin;” Reggie mumbled, nuzzling into her curls.
Julie yawned once more, letting her eyes drift closed as Luke began to snuffle on her other side. Sure, Julie knew that the world might not always be kind to the three of them, but for one magical night, they got to be together, and that made it truly a night to remember.
21 notes
·
View notes
Note
George anon here. Nowhere did I say that George didn't have a legitimate grievance. What I don't think is fair is that all his public ire seemed to be aimed at Paul when Paul wasn't the only one at fault and also did what he could to rectify things. I should clarify that George could feel however he wanted to even 30+ years later. But did he really still need to slag Paul, and (mostly) only Paul, off for it in public for decades?
part 2:
It wasn't all a slag-fest and George said some truly kind things about Paul too and was there for Paul when Linda died. All that said, even though George was joking about Imagine, he did do HDYS, was awful during the breakup, did pan some of Paul's work publicly, and said somewhere that the failure of Broad Street was good for Paul. My being partial to Paul doesn't make this less shitty and afaik George never apologized publicly for any of it. I like George but won't give him as pass on this.
part 3:
Seriously, George fans of the world (or at least monkberries' blog), explain to me how George wasn't punching someone over the decades who wasn't punching back and then explain why I shouldn't call that out. Like I said, it's great they worked on their friendship and George was there for Paul in some ways too. Doesn't mean this other stuff doesn't matter or didn't happen.
part 4:
I also think this from you is uncalled for "I do, however, get the vibe that sometimes people don’t like to allow George to space to feel how he feels about Paul because they’re fans of Paul and see everything from Paul’s perspective primarily, which can skew things sometimes." What have I actually said that justifies this? I'm curious.
I don’t know if these were all the same person or what, but whatever, I’m just combining all these asks into one, otherwise we’ll be here all night.
I feel like you are taking some things kind of personally here, which is strange to me, considering the only possibly objectionable things I said were “it’s worth remembering that george’s bitterness didn’t just appear out of nowhere”, which is a completely neutral and objectively true statement, and “sometimes people don’t like to allow George to space to feel how he feels about Paul because they’re fans of Paul and see everything from Paul’s perspective primarily, which can skew things sometimes”, which is an opinion I am allowed to have. Otherwise there’s not anything in my responses that indicate that I think HDYS or him being mean during the breakup was okay; in fact I said the opposite of that. There’s also nothing in my responses that indicates I think you shouldn’t call George out when he’s actually being a jerk, or that the “other stuff doesn’t matter or didn’t happen.”
When I said looking at things from Paul’s perspective primarily can skew things sometimes, this is what I mean: you think that “saying Broad Street’s failure was good for Paul” is slagging him off. You think that being complimentary about Broad Street but then making an off-the-cuff joke about Paul running out of songs is slagging him off. You didn’t say this, but it feels like anything even remotely negative out of George’s mouth about Paul gets added to the “slagging Paul off for decades” pile, but when you take each thing out individually and look at it from all angles, which is what I’m trying to do, I’m realizing now that a lot of it looks kind of benign.
Like the quote that started all this: on paper, with the truncation of the post, it looks way more bitter and mean than how he actually said it on video. On video, he immediately moves on to say that writing with Paul is something he’s interested in doing, indicating a much more ambivalent feeling. I didn’t know that when I answered the first anon that sparked this, and revised what I thought about it because it doesn’t seem as bad; even though the bitterness is still there, he’s open to the idea. Or the joke about Paul doing John songs: when (whoever it was) first mentioned the Broad Street thing, they said that George “said Paul didn't have any ideas of his own and that's why he did Broad Street.” I thought that sounded horrible and felt bad for Paul that George would say something like that publicly. But then someone else provided the link to what he actually said and it wasn’t that at all, it was just George making a joke and being kind about the film otherwise, which no one else was doing.
Anyway. I’m pretty much done with this. I am sympathetic to both Paul and George: I think George’s behavior during the breakup and any time he was actually cruel toward Paul in public is unacceptable. I wish he’d apologized in public for HDYS. I think Paul took the high road and that was admirable and smart of him. However, I also think that sometimes Paul fans get a little up-in-arms over small things like jokes and can blow things like George’s slagging Paul off over the decades out of proportion. I’m not saying George wasn’t sometimes mean, but some of it just isn’t as bad as they make it out to be.
11 notes
·
View notes
Note
Why would CF be considered bad? The devs say that it's the route about fighting for what you believe in, even if others get in your way. You may have to take down good people, but in the end her route ends with no more gods', nothing dangerous lurking anymore, etc. It doesn't seem like a bad route other than maybe killing good people.
I take it you mean “morally bad” rather than “badly written,” although the two are not mutually exclusive. I’d say that the CF we have is bad in both senses of the terms, and that a better-written CF would been have even more obviously morally objectionable but would have succeeded on that basis - a proper villain route where you get to enjoy being a genocidal conqueror (possibly with a side of your self-insert getting to sleep with your preferred flavor of villainous archetype between Edelgard, Hubert, and Jeritza).
Now, as for why it is, despite the muddled presentation, a villain route:
There are still dangers lurking in Fòdlan, and they’re called the Agarthans. CF is the only route where Thales survives, and where you make the least progress in dismantling his organization. AM gets him and potentially Myson in addition to Cornelia, while VW and SS leave out Cornelia but take care of Thales and raid Shambhala with VW additionally getting rid of zombie Nemesis and the Elites along with a handful of low-ranking Agarthans. CF kicks the Agarthans back to a postgame war waged entirely in character endings, which is neither satisfying as a player nor likely to remove the threat entirely, based on CF’s parallels with Genealogy of the Holy War (see below).
Fòdlan only has one (mainline) goddess, and she’s still alive at the end of CF. I’m not really sure where people got the impression that Rhea or any of the Nabateans consider themselves gods, but they don’t. Killing Rhea in CF causes Sothis’s Crest stone to disappear for no apparent reason (note that Rhea also dies by default in SS if you don’t raise your support with her, and yet Byleth’s hair does not revert to its original color in that ending), but Sothis herself “lives” because you can still S rank her in CF. This is two logical inconsistencies stacked on one another, the first being the bit about the disappearing Crest stone and the second being that Byleth survived its disappearance even though based on what we know of their birth their heart would not beat without the stone…meaning they should have died in that moment. When it comes to moral arguments however, Fire Emblem does not as a whole posit that the world would be any better or less prone to conflict without its gods. The “gods” of Fates and Echoes are really dragons undergoing mental deterioration in their old age, something Rhea does not show signs of except maybe in SS, and that only because the game realizes it still needs a final boss. In Radiant Dawn meanwhile, the game that evidently inspired Edelgard’s speech in the CF ending cutscene, Ike himself acknowledges the value of gods, and Ashera is not truly killed but is allowed to combine with Yune and become a complete entity again.
“Killing good people” is kind of a big deal. CF has the highest named character body count of any route, and although it lets you spare some of the people on its hit list you have to go out of your way to allow Claude, Seteth, and Flayn to live. You can never spare Dimitri, with the best you can do for him saving him from a humiliating execution at Edelgard’s hands and Dedue from becoming a Demonic Beast at the same time and letting them die together. CF Dimitri also doesn’t undergo the same trauma he experiences during the timeskip of the other routes, leaving him comparatively lucid and composed and thereby making all the route’s attempts to paint him as this violent madman who needs to be put down as little more than propaganda intended to rationalize conquering Faerghus and killing its king. Everything about CF positions it as the route of a conqueror; you invade two sovereign countries, take out their leaders, trample them underfoot (literally represented by the ending tapestry), and absorb them into a continental Empire. The bit about returning Fòdlan to the control of humans - incidentally also the goal of the Agarthans - means in this case dragon genocide, allowing you to participate in an event similar to the Scouring of Elibe’s backstory while also, like the Elibe games, forcing you to consider the ethical ramifications of such an act by giving you multiple examples of dragons who aren’t crazed monsters who need to be killed to ensure humanity’s survival.
The argument from Arvis. I went into it here, but the gist is that Edelgard’s similarities to FE’s original Flame Emperor are too significant to be ignored and notably do not make for a flattering comparison. Arvis also fights for his beliefs, a desire to unify Jugdral and create a better world with himself as emperor. In the process he allies himself with an assortment of unscrupulous backstabbing nobles as well as a shadowy cult that opposes a revered divine being and in the process commits multiple acts of murder up to and including most of the playable cast of the FE4′s first generation. He is no less an antagonist or a villain because he has arguably sympathetic ideals, and it’s only in the second generation when, broken and impotent (on account of the machinations of the aforementioned cult who only grew stronger under his reign - makes you wonder about CF’s postgame war, doesn’t it?) and with a new crop of playable characters coming for his head, he somewhat redeems himself by secretly delivering the divine sword Tyrfing to Seliph - tacitly acknowledging the inevitability of his impending death and that he was wrong in murdering Tyrfing’s previous wielder, Seliph’s father Sigurd, to advance his ambitions. Edelgard frustrates a lot of longtime fans of the series precisely because she never has any moment remotely similar to this, where her beliefs and actions are ever questioned in any meaningful way that forces her to confront what she’s doing. That’s to be expected when Arvis at the same point in his story was riding high off his triumph and couldn’t yet see how it would all unravel, but the constant echo chamber of Edelgard and her yes-men Hubert and Byleth is considerably more grating because it’s always in the player’s face. This brings me to…
CF isn’t about fighting for what you believe in, unless what you believe in is just Edelgard. The developers could make the argument that that’s the driving force behind Edelgard’s actions on any route, but choosing CF is never framed that way for the player via Byleth. It’s a spur-of-the-moment, purely emotional decision that asks you simply whether you should kill Edelgard for invading the Holy Tomb with an army and attempting to steal the Crest stones therein (which are, as a reminder, the remains of Rhea’s slaughtered kin - she’s got a pretty good reason to be as angry as she is). You’re not asked to reckon with the morality of Edelgard’s actions in that moment, and the game does its best to encourage you to forget about everything else she did as the Flame Emperor by simply never bringing up any of it ever again. This is why there are still fans arguing that Edelgard didn’t intend to have Dimitri and Claude assassinated in the Prologue, or that she wasn’t complicit in Flayn’s kidnapping, the experiments on the Remire villagers and students, and Jeralt’s death. The game refuses to let you judge her actions for what they are, even in some dialogue options in non-CF routes where you’re forced to pick one of two options sympathetic to Edelgard. Edelgard herself expresses surprise if you side with her, but there’s no explanation given for Byleth’s choice other than that they believe in her. Fates’s Conquest route has repeated moments where Corrin regrets siding with the family who raised them despite the presence of a more rational alternative (or two), as if they’re only there because they were railroaded into it by the player; Three Houses has the opposite problem, where it’s more prepared to question your decision if you take the less emotionally-driven option and side against Edelgard. To put it bluntly, the only reason from a storytelling/characterization perspective to pick CF is because you like Edelgard - possibly as an object for self-insert romance since the route itself leans hard into that interpretation even if you don’t S rank her.
98 notes
·
View notes
Text
I See A Dark Stranger: I See A Quirky Spy Comedy by Kim Luperi
When prompted (and sometimes not), I love telling folks about one of my favorite movies, I SEE A DARK STRANGER (‘46), released as The Adventuress in America. The little-remembered British flick stars Scottish actress Deborah Kerr as a headstrong Irish lass who grew up hating the British so much that she accidentally ends up a German spy during WWII.
Yes, it’s a comedy. And a thriller. And a romance.
You’d think a British film about a girl filled with such hatred towards the Brits that she works with the Germans against them would be a tad hard to swallow after the war, right? The comic liberty taken with the subject is one reason I’ve always admired I SEE A DARK STRANGER. Upon watching it again recently, I was also rather startled to find how contemporary it is—particularly the fact that the main character, Bridie (Kerr), blindly hates an entire group of people for no legitimate reason.
Filmmaking team Frank Launder (writer/director/producer) and Sidney Gilliat (writer/producer), authors of Alfred Hitchcock’s THE LADY VANISHES (‘38), wrote I SEE A DARK STRANGER near the end of WWII. Filming in Ireland and England took place for several months throughout the latter half of 1945, with the picture debuting in the UK in 1946 and the US in 1947. As Bruce Babington observes in his book Launder and Gilliat, that post-war release allowed the writers to make light of tense subjects despite being less than two years removed from the action. In fact, most reviews domestically and abroad lauded I SEE A DARK STRANGER, and curiously, few English critics voiced an issue with Bridie; most focused instead on the film’s comedic angles.
One reason for the picture’s positive notices is the precarious balance Launder and Gilliat pulled off, particularly in the film’s tone and Bridie’s character. Jerry Vermilye commented in The Great British Films that the movie “could hardly have emerged the winningly offbeat lark it remains—so cleverly skating the thin ice of Anglo-Irish satire and the seriousness of wartime espionage—without the teamwork of Launder and Gilliat.” The writers maintained an equilibrium between those tense spy segments and the story’s sardonic humor, smartly restraining the seriousness of Bridie’s actions… until she realizes their potential consequences, which keeps her sympathetic.
Indeed, Bridie’s intentions remain squarely anti-British as opposed to pro-Nazi, and the comical bits generally arise from her surroundings and misplaced patriotism. For instance, a particularly entertaining early scene finds Bridie sharing a train compartment with a nice-looking gentleman. Her inner musings of him flow from intrigue to attraction to doubt to hatred when she detects his English surname. Game over, for now, because he just so happens to be her Nazi recruiter. Kerr, top billed for the first time, displays impressive range and command of her role, balancing Bridie’s headstrong naïveté and her youthful impulsiveness with the severity of the events occurring around her. (Kerr won the New York Film Critics Circle Award jointly for this picture and 1947’s BLACK NARCISSUS.) Babington emphasized that Bridie’s “composite of wilful (sic) child and resourceful heroine, winsome sweetness and transgressive boundary crosser” is “essential to the film’s strategies.” It’s hard to believe Launder and Gilliat aimed to generate sympathy for a German spy, easily an objectionable notion for Brits, but Kerr’s candor, unsophisticated charisma and dry humor cause you to root for a happy ending—for her and the British!
One scene that finds Kerr amusingly oscillating, in this case between brusque anger and inexperienced flirtation, involves British officer David Baynes (Trevor Howard), whom she’s tasked to detain while other spies break a prisoner out of jail. When given her orders, she balks; as a Brit, Baynes is automatically the enemy. It’s a riotous scene watching Bridie try to suppress her aversion as she feebly attempts to keep Baynes occupied with her feminine wiles. How he sticks by her is beyond me!
That raging, blind hatred Bridie shows feels very relevant today. Her gullibility and baseless revulsion for another ethnicity fuels her actions and ensnarls her in something that she eventually (thankfully) realizes can hurt her own people; in fact, that animosity is the basis for this entire film. And to think: All of it started with misinformation passed down by her father. Without proper education or access to the facts, Bridie almost got herself, and many others, killed. If it weren’t for the clearly satirical slant of her character, Bridie could truly be a terrifying soul.
But as it goes, Launder and Gilliat took a potentially provocative subject and characters and turned them on their head during a time when many were in desperate need of laughter. If you’re in the mood for a quirky gem filled with witty dialogue and colorful characters, I highly suggest seeking out I SEE A DARK STRANGER.
57 notes
·
View notes
Text
‘Film and Iris Murdoch: An Exploration of Film’s Potential to Produce Moral Transformation’
Abstract
Due to the Earth’s state of rapid environmental devastation, and the evidence revealing how human behaviour has led to this, it is apparent that there is something significantly problematic with humanity’s general engagement with the natural world. Through Iris Murdoch’s thought, this can be attributed to humanity’s disposition toward egocentrism, which I suggest has caused a gaping disconnection between individuals and the natural world. Thus, to improve, individuals must morally transform and counter egocentrism through ‘un-selfing’ and increasing regard for the other. Although, due to the nature of egocentrism, and its aversion to being challenged, there are limiting factors to achieving this. Along with Murdoch, Cora Diamond finds art to be a particularly accessible influence upon individual’s moral life and powerfully able to create sympathetic regard for the other. Moreover, since its inception, the artistic medium, film, has been discussed and regarded for its ability to affect viewers. One suggestion, that I will assume, is that film has a unique relationship with human consciousness. Therefore, this paper is an exploration of film’s unique potential to improve subjects’ engagement with the natural world through enabling a more truthful seeing. In further illustrating this I analyse two films, the 2018 documentary, Dominion, and the 2017 fiction, Okja. Both of which focus upon humanity’s egocentric engagement with non-human animals. From this, I conclude that film can improve engagement with the natural world, with fictional film having a notable advantage to morally transform viewers. I suggest that this is due to its exceptional ability to influence consciousness whilst remaining abstracted enough to not directly confront the ego in such a way that counterproductive effects occur.
‘Film and Iris Murdoch: An Exploration of Film’s Potential to Produce Moral Transformation’
I am beginning this paper with the premise that, to a great extent, how humanity engages with the natural world[1] is significantly problematic. Furthermore, I assume that the problem is inherently connected to egocentrism. This is a concept that has been discussed widely across time and cultures. Moreover, there is a line of philosophical thought, in which Iris Murdoch resides, that takes egocentrism’s antithesis to be met in self-transcendence or ‘un-selfing’[2]. From this position, I will explore the artistic medium, film, for its potential to induce transformation of consciousness through countering egocentrism with self-transcendence. Furthermore, how this experience from film can cultivate positive moral transformation in subjects’ engagement with the natural world. In exploring this, this paper will be arranged into three sections. Section I: Premises – in this section I will explain my assumptions and the key aspects of Iris Murdoch’s thought that I will be engaging with. Section II: Why Film? – This section will be a discussion of what is significant about film in relation to my premises and Murdoch’s thought. Furthermore, I will establish some ideas that will be further considered in section III. Lastly, in Section III: Case Studies, I will closely analyse two films with a particular capacity to produce moral transformation.
I: Premises
In this section, I will outline my premises for the exploration to come. Firstly, through addressing problems regarding humanity’s engagement with the natural world and making its relation to disconnection apparent. I will then identify that disconnection is a form of egocentrism. Following this I will define egocentrism and self-transcendence through Murdochian thought. Lastly, I will discuss what I find to be the related difficulties in challenging egocentrism to un-self.
Disconnection
The Earth is going through rapid environmental devastation and it is well understood that human action directly affects this. Yet, humanity continues to uphold morally objectionable practices that are known to cause such devastation to the natural world. One major example of such practices is factory farming, which is a grossly problematic system that only serves certain individuals in certain parts of the world. Simultaneously, it directly causes major destruction to the natural world. That is, to billions of non-human animals who are destroyed, to other humans, and to the wider ecological environment. This supports Iris Murdoch’s more general claim “That human beings are naturally selfish seems true on the evidence, whenever and wherever we look at them”[3]. Furthermore, it has been proposed that the planet is now in the Anthropocene age. This term was popularised in 2000 by Paul Crutzen and Eugene F. Stoermer, who harnessed it in highlighting that humanity has become a geological force, whose actions, have and will increasingly, deeply impact the Earth (Martin-Jones 2016, 82).
Even though specifics regarding the Anthropocene are contested, I find its general conception to demonstrate how disconnected humanity is from the natural world. For to impose and destruct in such a way indicates a hegemonic pattern within how humans see themselves in relation to all else is, that is as superior and rightful dominators. This problem with disconnection to the natural world has been examined widely, thus, I am only introducing it here as the theoretical background to my exploration. Some of the many who have discussed it significantly include ‘nature writers’ such as Henry David Thoreau and Aldo Leopold. Their major works specifically examine the moral significance of humanity appreciating and connecting with the natural world. Moreover, Leopold states that it is humanity’s increasing disengagement from the natural world that is the greatest obstacle to responding to it adequately (Heyd 2016).
Egocentrism
Aligning with Iris Murdoch, I ultimately find this disconnection to be an unfavourable by-product of egocentrism[4]. Simply defined, egocentrism is human self-interest, which Murdoch states blinds us (Murdoch 2013, 98). More specifically, it is the untruthful, self-created narrative that places the individual as protagonist and centre in which all else revolves. This can be witnessed in the certain path of engagement humanity has taken, that which has led to the Anthropocene and the heightened necessity to transform. Furthermore, it serves to enable a sense of comfort and security in exaggerated notions of self-importance and centrality (Olsson 2018, 168). Thus, egocentrism makes the reality of existence, which Murdoch describes as groundless and contingent, more bearable (Olsson 2018, 168). Moreover, egocentrism has been positioned as the root of humanity’s problematic engagement with the natural world. This is due to how it manifests in the world, such as factory farming and, more widely, the climate crisis. Therefore, egocentrism can be regarded as the generator of the objectification and subsequent, seemingly limitless, exploitation of the natural world (Chang 2013, 225). For egoistic selfhood prevents subjects from truly seeing. In the most extreme expression of Murdoch’s thought, she states the ego stops a true seeing of anything, from a blade of grass, to another person (Murdoch 2013, 68).
Moreover, Murdoch states that individuals’ everyday seeing is veiled by prejudice, selfishness, defensiveness and lack of attention caused by this ‘fat, relentless, ego’ (Murdoch 2013, 51). Therefore, subjects predominantly see an obscured version of the world that is skewed to their convenience, which is illuminated by Murdoch’s statement that there are false suns far easier to gaze upon than the real one (Murdoch 2013, 98). Murdoch elaborates upon this through use of Plato’s allegory of the cave, stating that the fire of the cave is one such false sun. Furthermore, those who turn around and see the fire may get drawn in by its warmth and end up believing that is the truth, thus, never leaving the cave and seeing by the light of the real sun (Murdoch 2013, 98). In other words, it is easier for the egocentric self to engage with false, comforting appearances than the reality beyond those appearances and to replace one falsity with another. Thus, it is easier for subjects’ ego to perpetuate the narrative that humans must eat meat than to face the horrific truth of factory farming. This skewed vision is inadequate, it serves to protect and maintain the fat, relentless, ego, thus leads to inadequacy in appreciating and engaging with the natural world.
Self-Transcendence
Therefore, in overcoming this, humanity must displace ego and put the non-self at the centre of attention, through self-transcendence or ‘un-selfing’ (Murdoch 2013). This can be described as a process of increasing humility regarding one’s autonomy (Olsson 2018, 168). This shift of focus from the self, ideally, allows subjects to truly observe the independent reality of what individuals, humanity, non-human animals and the rest of the natural world are. Further, it increases regard for the other and respect for the significance of individuality and difference outside of the self. Therefore, un-selfing makes it increasingly difficult to treat those others as mere things. For un-selfing allows just attention to the other, by which a level of admiration for them grows (Murdoch 2013, 64). Furthermore, in this process the self is most truly itself. For it is not ruled by egocentric vision, instead becomes aware of the reality that selfhood is created, not given. This means that in self-transcending the egocentric narrative that permeates majority of everyday life is recognised as non-essential. This is a certain metaphysical position, also upheld by Chia-Ju Chang, who describes it as such - in losing yourself you become yourself (Chang 2013, 230). Murdoch identifies the process of un-selfing in her example of M and D, from The Idea of Perfection. M is D’s mother in law, who is revealed to feel jealous of D and that D is a “silly vulgar girl” (Murdoch, The Idea of Perfection 2014, 17). Some time passes and M decides to reconsider this egocentric disposition, suspending her feelings towards D. After this introspective un-selfing her feelings are eased and M ultimately sees D in a different light, one which is not limited to her own egoistic presumptions (Murdoch 2014).
Moreover, there exists some debate surrounding the adequacy of Murdoch’s thought on moral transformation. A common complaint against Murdoch is that her focus on self-scrutiny aligns with ideology of female subordination and that she is too focused upon the individual agent to pay adequate attention to the social structures that shape their vision (Hamalainen 2015). Nora Hamalainen argues that this is a misleading representation of Murdoch’s thought. Further, that Murdoch indeed alludes to how conceptual frameworks, patterns of attention, and capacity for understanding are formed and continued due to cultural as well as individual structures (Hamalainen 2015, 752). Moreover, Hamalainen illuminates that Murdoch’s un-selfing is ultimately a “recognition of structural bias, of privilege, of inequality as well as the recognition of personal faults” (Hamalainen 2015, 753). Therefore, although there are complications to Murdoch’s conceptions of egocentrism and un-selfing, and she may be read as not adequately reflecting upon wider structures that enforce certain engagement with the world, akin to Hamalainen I find that her thought is relevant to countering egocentrism from an individual, as well as structural perspective.
Challenging egocentrism
Therefore, un-selfing is the fundamental way of overcoming the problem of egocentrism. Yet, I find how un-selfing is approached to be very important. For, as illustrated above, egocentrism creates a barrier that makes it highly difficult to change. Here again we can think of the current climate where devastation to the natural world is increasing. Human action is leading to moral and environmental catastrophe. This is happening even though there has been ongoing argument that there is something very wrong with how humanity engages with the natural world, significantly so within the last hundred years, and thus we should transform in the light of this. This coincides with Murdochian thought - that the ego is innately prejudiced and defensive, it desperately clings to its comfortable, created narrative. Therefore, it is very difficult to get the egocentric self to see through its built appearances and change. For, in the face of being challenged, egocentric subjects can become too defensive or feel too hopeless to transform.
Instead of leading to un-selfing, challenging the ego can result in the opposing force of strengthening its self-centric enclose. Significantly, Cora Diamond states that if human beings are to be moved to see in a different way “surely it is a fact about many of them that one certain way of not convincing them is to try arguing the case” (Diamond 1982, 24). By which Diamond means there is something about argument or moral principle alone that, generally, is not palpable to people. Even though this is not explicitly stated by Diamond, I believe that part of what is alluded to in her claims is that overt confrontation to selfhood is, mostly, not the best avenue to exploring and improving morality. Seemingly, there is a fine line to meet that determines whether challenge to the ego will be accepted or otherwise. Moreover, the form in which the challenge comes seems to be the greatest factor in enabling or limiting its effectiveness. My hope that in the discussion to come it becomes clearer how film can meet this line and challenge egocentrism in such a way that is acceptable and can lead to un-selfing.
II: Why Film?
Now that I have outlaid my premises, I will advance upon exploring the artform, film, with the intention of illuminating film’s relation to self-transcendence. I will begin this section by addressing moral transformation from the natural world alone and what I see as the limits to this. Then, I will discuss art, widely, as a significantly accessible space for subjects to morally transform. Followed by film and its exceptional capacity to produce un-selfing, which will predominantly be considered through a line of thought that considers film as mimetic of human consciousness. Thus, film as significantly abled to influence consciousness. Finally, I will address that this is not the case for all film, which will be exemplified by a film that I do not believe effectively promotes un-selfing.
The natural world and moral transformation
Intuitively, it seems that the best way to counter egocentrism and morally transform engagement with the natural world would be through the natural world itself. Instead of via human created mediums (Murdoch 2013, 82). Indeed, it has posited that there are complications within art’s human imposition that can be viewed as contaminating the purity of appreciating the natural world as it is. Reflecting this thought is Murdoch’s statement, “The experience of art is more easily degradable than the experience of nature” (Murdoch 2013, 83). Furthermore, many thinkers have discussed instances where in they were moved to displace the self through experiencing aspects of the natural world. A paramount example of this can be found in Murdoch’s ‘The Sovereignty of Good Over Other Concepts’. Murdoch recounts being oblivious to her surrounds, in an egocentric brooding, until suddenly observing a hovering kestrel. She states “In a moment everything is altered…There is nothing now but kestrel” (Murdoch 2013, 82). In her entrancement Murdoch’s egocentric focus was eased and her relationship to the natural world was transformed. Murdoch was deeply moved from truly witnessing the creature’s independent reality. Furthermore, this was not confined to the moments of captivation but was an ongoing transformation that reoriented Murdoch. This is illustrated by her stating, “when I return to thinking of the other matter it seems less important” (Murdoch 2013, 82)
Similarly, Raimond Gaita’s book, The Philosophers Dog, epitomizes how significant experiences with the natural world can be for un-selfing. Particularly the passages where Gaita recounts seeing his father gently attending to bees. Gaita describes how his father would collect the vulnerable creatures from the ground, after they had fallen victim to the cold mornings, and bring them indoors where he warmed them back to life (Gaita 2002, 109). Gaita admits to being entranced and self-transcendent in the moments of seeing this (Gaita 2002, 109). Yet, the engagement did not end when the trance broke. Gaita states it “transformed my sense of the insect world… Over the years I reflected on it” (Gaita 2002, 110). Therefore, revealing that the experience induced a pragmatic change in Gaita. The rippling effects of which continued through his life and the way that he responded to this aspect of the natural world was forever changed. He could no longer do such things as tread on bees or regard them with indifference in the way he may have before or had he not experienced this[5].
Therefore, I acknowledge the significance of these experiences and their distinct excellence in not requiring human manipulation. Yet, as I hope the previous section has illuminated, humanity is the ruling force creating changes upon the natural world and, evidently, are on a trajectory of increasing disconnection from it. Suggesting that there is a growing gap and limitation in subjects’ ability to un-self through the natural world alone[6]. Therefore, I want to explore how film can be a mediator to inducing similar experiences of un-selfing and subsequent transformation as those described by Murdoch and Gaita. Further, how film can contribute to lessening egocentrism in the world and improving the current state of humanity’s engagement with the natural world. For I believe that film has significant potential to engage subjects to see the world more truly, which is a position that coincides with a niche area in philosophical thought that analyses film as a consciousness raising platform (Martin-Jones 2016, 74). For instance, Robert Sinnerbrink argues that film inherently has transformative potential. Therefore, if this potential is realised, the experience of film can sharpen viewers perception and beliefs.
Art and moral transformation
Murdoch argues that although other pursuits, such as intellectual, can aid our ability to forget self and perceive justly, art is the most educational of all human activities. Art pervades everyday experience and is a place in which the nature of morality can be seen, giving a clearer sense to ideas that may be met elsewhere (Murdoch 2013, 88 & 85). Murdoch states “Art pierces the veil and gives sense to the notion of a reality which lies beyond appearance”, thus allowing subjects an un-obtruded view of appearances (Murdoch 2013, 86). Murdoch’s suggestion is that through art subjects can be led to un-self and see the world more truly. Even though it is paradoxical that art’s ‘de-naturing’ would amount to improved seeing of the natural world, Murdoch states that it is self-conscious activity that permeates everyday life and provides an avenue for humans to better connect with and see the world. This Murdoch finds is specifically achieved by great art that she defines as that which shares with nature an invitation to un-possessive contemplation (Murdoch 2013, 83). Therefore, what is important to Murdoch is how art enables transcending the limitations of personality and self-focus to see and engage more truthfully (Murdoch 2013, 85).
Moreover, this notion of art’s general accessibility is highly significant to my claims about film’s potential. It is also reinforced by Cora Diamond, who states that how subjects respond to the world emerges from their habitual, socialised relationships and the meaning that develops along with them. Considered in the light of Murdoch, this meaning that is directing responses has an inherent connection to egocentrism. That is not to say that the relations are necessarily egoistic, but that they carry with them an inherent propensity for egocentrism. Therefore, to change responses requires changing of meaning or in other words, un-selfing, which Diamond also claims is best achieved through the strength of art. For art can return individuals to truth in everyday experiences of the world, as it has a special capacity to expand the moral imagination. This is found in its ability to present examples that evoke the engagement of individual’s full moral capacity of thought and emotion (Diamond 1982). In Anything but Argument? Diamond discusses three central ways that art can lead subjects to new moral dispositions, which I believe requires an element of un-selfing.
The first is through poetic language. Diamond draws heavily from William Wordsworth’s lyrical ballads in stating that this power to transform comes from “the way objects are described and feelings given in connection with each other” (Diamond 1982, 30). Furthermore, the significance of this is also reliant on subjects being moved by the simple affections of human nature. In other words, this literary art can be moving through its representations of others being moved. This is due to how it resembles readers’ own capacities for such affection and can therefore incite a similar disposition in those engaging with the artform as that which is represented (Diamond 1982, 30). For they can see and get pleasure from the representation’s capture of their own capacity to be moved. The second way Diamond discusses is through sympathetic leading. This refers to how artworks can allow subjects access to the perspective of others and thus, enables them to consider others ‘in their own right’. Furthermore, sympathetic leading relates to how artworks invite a consideration of not only the more blatant narrative content but what it might mean to attend to a matter in a certain way. Lastly, Diamond discusses the trope irony, which often acts as satiric social commentary, using humour to engage attention towards moral concerns related to individuals, relationships, and societies. Furthermore, Diamond states that amusement, sympathy, and critical intelligence all play a role in irony’s success in moving subjects (Diamond 1982, 34). Therefore, irony may not be moving to those who cannot follow. Ultimately though, Diamond identifies that the use of irony draws attention to moral thought and criticisms’ centrality to a flourishing human life (Diamond 1982, 34). Although Diamond is predominantly applying these concepts to literature, I believe that they are easily transferable to film.
Film
Comparatively, film is a very young artform. Emerging from photography’s capture of the still image, film brought motion. Quickly it become, and is increasingly, a massively influential medium that is engaged with widely across the world. Since its inception, close to the end of the 1800’s, film has transformed and advanced significantly. Moreover, thinkers across disciplines have sought to uncover the nature of film (Elsaesser and Hagener 2015, 1). The ideas that have emerged from this are as varied and contentious as the medium that they are engaged with. Regardless, they typically establish that film can leave a deep impact on viewers consciousness, changing their lives and worldviews (Elsaesser and Hagener 2015, 170). This is ultimately where my interest lies. Furthermore, in this way, film can be thought of as ‘doing philosophy’[7].
Moreover, film has often been conceptualised as a space to contact the other. For it illuminates a reality that is commonly ignored and allows viewers to truly see and un-self (Chang 2013, 229). It can bring the other closer to the viewer through its specific techniques (Elsaesser and Hagener 2015, 10). These techniques are exceptionally immersive for they create a holistic, multi-sensory experience that closely mimics the human experience. This is supported by recent research in neuroscience, called mirror neurons, that shows how film scenes involving injury or close ups upon facial expression induce immediate bodily reactions in viewers, of a similar quality to that which is seen (Aertson 2017, 115). Thus, film can operate as an erasure to the disconnect and merge the gap between self and other. Mediating and lessening the physical and conceptual distance between subjects and the natural world. This can be through documentaries or works of complete fantastical fiction, for, ultimately, film springs forth from the world in which it inevitably returns (Pick 2013, 21).
Moreover, In 1916 Hugo Munsterberg, who was one of the first film theorists, stated that film is so powerful for how it delivers vivid sense impressions to the mind (Elsaesser and Hagener 2015, 172). This is elaborated upon by Colin McGinn in his book ‘The Power of Movies’. McGinn argues that there is something unique to film that connects deeply with the human psyche, attracting subjects in an exceptional way (McGinn 2005, 3-4). Further, that this is related to the fact that humans are attracted to stories. Moreover, films tell stories primarily through the visual, opposed to vocal, which is important for unlike reading, we do not need to learn to watch (McGinn 2005, 7). He argues that we are predominantly visual creatures that, naturally, do and always have watched (McGinn 2005, 12). Thus, although film are relatively recent phenomena, they engage with a deep-seated human propensity (McGinn 2005, 14). For film transcends language and presents stories and moral journeys through, what could be called, more primordial means. Thus, this view indicates that there is something exceptional about film’s accessibility and propensity to produce moral transformation. For film relies heavily, although not solely, upon the visual. Whether documentary or fiction, it uses cinematic techniques such as editing, close-up, and the mis-en-scene of design, lighting, space and composition to present a story that can transform viewers.
Furthermore, McGinn suggests a significance in how film exceptionally mediates human connection. He discusses its likeness to the traditional practice of groups assembling around a fireplace and engaging in storytelling (McGinn 2005, 27-28). He identifies that humans are drawn to this comforting practice, which the cinematic experience re-creates. The fire’s flickering light has been overtaken by those that create the screens moving image (McGinn 2005, 27-28). Moreover, I find that technological advances, which are constantly in flux, have further changed and increased this mediated experience of connection. Particularly over the last couple of decades. The growth and popularity of technological devices and digital services such as Netflix and YouTube have added another layer to the evolution of human story sharing. I find this to be related to the significance of the medium and how it corresponds to wider cultural phenomena. Furthermore, Netflix now has near to two hundred million subscribers worldwide, indicating a significance to how this platform mediates connection through storytelling. In the act of subscribing to Netflix and viewing its films, subjects become participants in a wider practice of connecting with others.
Approximately half a century ago, in her only paper that focuses solely upon film, Murdoch discussed the significance of film’s immersive capacity. She stated that film can do something no other art medium can, that is present “human drama and feeling in the form of momentary awareness” for “film is as near to us as our own self-awareness, and comes over us with the inevitability of time itself” (Murdoch 1956). By this Murdoch is creating a distinction between the nature of film compared to other artforms. In contrasting film to painting, she suggests that film is upon consciousness in a way that does not easily allow viewers to stand back and ponder while they are viewing[8], for the film experience is exceptionally absorbing (Murdoch, Vogue 2016). Elsewhere, film has been described as “complexly woven into time, consciousness, and self” (Elsaesser and Hagener 2015, 171). I find what Murdoch is alluding to about film is well exemplified by the 2001 biopic film on her own life. Iris presents certain aspects of Murdoch’s life and relationships, using cinematic techniques that allow this to unfold to the viewer over paralleling timelines (Eyre 2001). Slicing between Murdoch in her youth and her old age leading to her death. I find that what this achieves is related to Murdoch’s statements about film and, more widely, her ideas of un-selfing. For the presentation of Murdoch’s life in this film transcends the usual confines of time. Through bringing life and death to meet so closely an awareness of the transient nature of selfhood is cultivated. Complementary to this, McGinn states that film can uniquely condense a great deal of significance into a brief and isolated experience, that of watching a movie (McGinn 2005, 14).
This leads me to the concept of attention. This is a concept of utmost importance to engagement and self-transcendence and has been discussed widely across disciplines. Murdoch defines attention as a just and loving gaze directed upon an individual reality (Murdoch, On 'God' and 'Good' 2013). Furthermore, in focusing attention subjects let go of egocentric narratives and images and surrender to the world that overflows the individual (Olsson 2018, 165). Antony Fredriksson claims that film can uniquely draw in viewers and thus guide attention. Further, that this can be morally guiding in how it focuses upon showing certain problems. He states that subjects’ are often met with surprise by how different the world can look when attention is drawn or shifted (Fredriksson 2018, 60). I believe that what he is referring to is the jolting experience of displacing the self. Furthermore, Fredriksson draws on Siegfried Kracauer, whose thought on film has been exceptionally influential. Kracauer was interested in how film draws attention, particularly to the transient. This implies how films’ form and content reveal ontological insights to the natural world and its transient nature, which I find is notably identifiable in the film Iris. Furthermore, this insight into the transient nature of self, that film can reveal, is of great significance to un-selfing.
Continuing this exploration upon films’ influence on consciousness, McGinn states that in watching a film subjects often experience an altered state of consciousness (McGinn 2005, 4). Similarly, Chang argues that film can operate akin to mediation spaces and practices. The basic objective of which is changing consciousness through self-transcendence (Chang 2013, 226). In both meditating and watching a film, subjects, typically, enter the practice with the intention of concentrating intently for an extended period. The ideal outcome being an overwhelming, and disorientating experience of presence. The subject becomes alienated from a sense of time and self-consciousness is lost. This is an exceptional state of mind that reorients the subject’s concept of real (Chang 2013, 228). Also, potentially, producing ongoing affects that see the subject un-selfing and continuing to engage with that which the focus was upon [9] (Chang 2013, 231). As was identified in Murdoch and Gaita’s experiences with the natural world. Furthermore, this aligns with a cognitive film theorist approach, which is predominantly interested in what emerges from the relationship between film and viewer. From this approach, Gilles Deleuze describes cinema as a form of becoming, where matter, motion and consciousness are inseparable (Elsaesser and Hagener 2015, 179).
Furthermore, McGinn discusses how “The cinema screen is there to be transcended” (McGinn 2005, 37). He states that in gazing at the screen viewers are invited to look through it, opposed to at it. For, innately, it directs attention elsewhere. It is not that the screen is not noticed, but the eye does not stop on it (McGinn 2005, 20-21). In other words, it is not the patterns of light forming on the screen, but what they represent that is being attended to while watching. McGinn compares this phenomenon to the use of language. Highlighting that when listening to someone speak, typically, it is not foremostly the words being attended to but what they mean. McGinn finds that the same happens with watching film (McGinn 2005, 17). Furthermore, I find this to be affirmed by lines of Murdoch and Diamond’s thought. When considering the nature of egocentrism, what subjects see is not necessarily dependent on the physical or immediate, such as the screen, but largely to do with conceptual perception. I.E the meaning that is derived. The film screen allows viewers conceptual engagement that does not rely foremostly upon attending to the screen. Thus, it is transcended.
Not all film
Yet, there are issues within how film works and can influence human consciousness. For watching film has a propensity to be more passive than experiencing other artforms. Similarly to Murdoch’s statements on film and consciousness, McGinn illuminates that due to how film typically works, it is difficult to be critically reflective whilst watching (McGinn 2005, 200). Therefore, it is harder to recognise propaganda in film and easier to be misled to untruthful seeing and subsequent engaging with the world. Film can reorganise viewers conceptions, leading to further indulging of the ego, instead of displacing it, or to perpetuating a different egocentric vision. This can be through over sentimentalising and the presentation of propaganda, such as clichés or conventionalising of prejudiced and detrimental norms. Therefore, I am not attempting to claim that all film is consciousness raising and promotes un-selfing. At least that some are more direct and able to do this than others. To illustrate this is I will draw on the 1986, live-action film, The Adventures of Milo and Otis. This film presents the lives and relationships of the two leading characters, a cat named Milo and a dog named Otis, as they navigate the wilderness and are faced with many challenges. Therefore, to an extent the film is bringing attention to the natural world. Yet, how it does so is blatantly contradictory and damaging, thus, its effectiveness to present truth undermined.
Almost all the characters in this film are non-human animals who are anthropomorphised. That is, they are given human voices and dispositions via voice over narration. Anthropomorphism is not necessarily problematic for, on the surface of things, non-human animals may indeed share similarities to human’s inner life, such as experiences of joy in play and of pain in injury. Further, it can be a tool to enable others to come into our realm of understanding. Yet, explaining non-human behaviours exclusively in human terms means disabling the importance of sympathising with the other and not truly understanding the significance of attending to differences in the other. Furthermore, I believe the use of anthropomorphising in this film over sentimentalises the creatures and positions their significance purely in their capacity to enact human qualities, opposed to their innate independence. It does not allow any room for the notion that non-human animals do not need to be like humans to deserve loving attention. Therefore, the presentation is self-centred and untruthful, perpetuating the idea that the natural world is only fit to be appreciated if it appears to mirror humanity.
Although, how the natural world is represented in film is not necessarily the end of film’s capacity to affect subjects. Hence, what dramatically elevates this films failure to adequately re-organise the world runs deeper – to the means of the film’s creation. There are serious allegations of animal abuse that surround The Adventures of Milo and Otis. These suggest that multiple animals were killed and injured for the sake of narrative aspects. This is unsurprising considering that one scene shows ‘Milo’ falling down an ocean cliff face, into the densely rock populated waters (Hata 1986). Thus, this demonstrates the truly dramatic heights of disconnection between humanity and the natural world. For this film anthropomorphises and sentimentalises the non-human animals, yet, allegations suggest that numerous were injured and killed for the sake of its production. Therefore, the overly indulgent sentimentality of this film informs selfish attachment and reinforces egocentrism, promoting an untruthful engagement with the natural world. Thus, I acknowledge that there are evidently examples of film that do not actively dislocate egocentrism. Furthermore, they can have opposing effects that indulge the ego[10]. Even so, my interest is upon further exploring those films that do achieve improved transformation of human consciousness and attention toward the natural world.
III: Case Studies
Therefore, this final section will consist of exploring two films to illuminate my claims about film. Both of which belong to the sub-genre, eco-cinema, which can be described as film that attempts to direct a loving attention toward the natural world through addressing alternative perspectives from the common narrow, anthropocentric worldview[11]. More specifically, these films direct attention to the reality of how humans engage with non-human animals, which is better grasped through their showing than through mere moral principle or argument. These films challenge egocentrism, thus, can produce un-selfing and an improvement in how subjects engage with the natural world. They endeavour to retrain subjects’ perception toward the natural world through teaching subjects to see it without appropriating it into ‘the greedy self’ (Murdoch 2013, 64). Therefore, both films significantly incite philosophical thought, particularly moral and ontological. Ultimately, I find that these films have the potential to give a clearer sense to reality.
Furthermore, they achieve this through their specific filmic techniques that resonate with consciousness and immerse viewers into the film’s story, having significant potential to deeply affect viewers ongoingly. The first film I will discuss is the non-fictional, Dominion and the second is the speculative fictional, Okja. I find both these films especially powerful in transforming subjects. For, they present and promote non-egocentric views of the natural world. Moreover, what these films present is a response to egocentric propaganda that saturates the human – non-human dynamic. Therefore, they are an attempt to get viewers to truly look at the world and then draw their own conclusions. In what follows I will discuss what I find to be the most significant aspects of these films that promote moral transformation. Furthermore, I will contrast them regarding what I perceive as their differing level of accessibility.
Dominion
Dominion is a feature-length documentary, written and directed by Australian activist, Chris Delforce. The film premiered in Melbourne, in March of 2018, and is free to access online (Aussie Farms 2018). Furthermore, it was funded by multiple crowdfunding campaigns and a grant from the animal protection institute, Voiceless, thus, representing the meeting place of cinema and activism (Aussie Farms 2018). Taking a broad scope, Dominion is expository, bringing attention to the morality of humans’ egocentric disengagement from and dominion over the natural world. Focally, non-human animals. Delforce himself suggests a Murdochian view, stating that this dominion is caused by humanity perceiving the self as dominant over the other (Aussie Farms Repository 2019). The film uses footage that captures the typical ways humans fail to adequately engage with non-human animals. This footage was gained from hidden, handheld, and the more recent technology of, aerial cameras, which is accompanied by narration from celebrity personalities. I find the aspect of celebrity personality compelling in elevating subjects’ engagement with the film. As McGinn notes, humans have a certain attitude of admiration toward celebrities (McGinn 2005, 196). Although celebrity admiration can be linked to egocentrism, in the case of this film, I find it can promote attentiveness and enable subjects to be more susceptible to un-selfing through the film.
The film’s intention is to disrupt viewers comfort by revealing the gaping discrepancy between the common narrative surrounding humans’ relationships with the natural world and the opposing reality of it. Dominion focuses upon human moral development, akin to that which Murdoch discusses. Therefore, can be understood as a response to propaganda and as a leveller to egocentric vision. The film attempts to bridge the disconnect and make viewers see past egocentrism; to see the non-self, non-human more truthfully, instead of playing into the anthropocentric and egocentric vision presented by the likes of The Adventures of Milo and Otis. Dominion draws viewers to see the animals as they are, removed from the egocentric glaze. I find it to present a more truthful depiction of these creatures that reflects aspects of how they may be like and unlike humans.
Reverse panopticon
Anat Pick discusses the notion that activist documentary, such as Dominion, can operate as a reverse panopticon that “elevates the audience above the barriers to witness prisoner conditions” (Pick 2013, 112). It is called ‘reverse’ for it does not take the typical panoptic structure, these films undermine privilege of the gaze, inviting all to bear witness (Pick 2013, 116). Thus, activists and the wider public increase their power over the industries that profit from hiding the reality of certain practices. Further, those industries are compelled to transform as they become increasingly aware that they can never be certain of when they are being watched. This incites a self-discipline within these industries and increased insight for viewers that can improve engagement with non-human animals. Therefore, this is a way, completely unique to film, that subjects’ engagement with the natural world can be morally transformed. For it is the only way that individuals can truly witness and judge the inner workings of factory farming, whilst also being reminded of their role in its continuation. Moreover, without the pressure of potential surveillance, the cruelty within these industries is less likely to decrease.
Interestingly, I also find the notion of reverse panopticon with its contention between activist and industry to be highly analogous to the contention between egocentrism and un-selfing. For the industries whose practices Dominion captures, who gain from hiding the reality of their practices operate similarly to egocentrism. That is, they are fighting to maintain a structured narrative surrounding their place in the world that purposely masks whatever may undermine that created vision of selfhood. Moreover, the activists with their cameras are representative of the process of un-selfing. They cut through the veiling false narrative and expose the truth that egocentrism and factory farms are self-serving and hide the reality of the world. Ultimately, Dominion plays a symbolic role in highlighting the importance of continued reflection upon how egocentrism masks reality. Furthermore, I find this to promote a transparency between industry and public and between ego and true self, as it is identified by Murdoch and Chang.
Truthful seeing
The film’s footage and editing truly capture the disconnection between humanity and the other. The film cuts between close ups of non-human faces, showing the creatures as independent subjects, to aerial drone footage showing the “terrifying scale and the way in which the traditional "farm" has been replaced by these massive identical rows of factories” (Aussie Farms 2018). Thus, this reflects how subjects become mere objects or things within this system where “thousands of these individuals are packed together as mere units of production, their individual identities lost or indistinguishable” (Aussie Farms 2018). Furthermore, this highlights how the evolving advancements in film technology is a significant aspect in heightening films’ potential to be morally transforming. Moreover, this footage is shocking and is often met with disgust or disbelief, therefore operates in the way Fredriksson identifies. That is, when film presents the world in a different way, viewers egocentric vision can be uncomfortably shaken from the centre.
Moreover, a great portion of Dominion’s footage reveals humans menacingly content in what can only be called deliberate abuse. Factory farm workers are shown joking and laughing, whilst purposely committing unnecessary acts of violence. Most commonly this is savage physical beatings and the directing of verbal insult toward the animals (Delforce 2018). Anat Pick argues that this behaviour acknowledges the animals as vulnerable subjects, opposed to mere unfeeling objects. The latter being the ego-driven image that certain industries calculatingly attempt to maintain (Pick 2013, 29). More generally, it is a philosophical position that many, often inadvertently, assume for it is less problematic to egocentrism. As revealed by Murdoch, the egocentric self always attempts to escape from unpleasant reality (Murdoch 2013, 77). Therefore, Dominion forces viewers to acknowledge that contemporary meat production is far from the obscured vision they carry.
Pick identifies that the shaky, shadowed, pixelated and general lack of quality in the footage produced by documentaries such as Dominion is highly significant. Stating that they can serve as the symbolic sincerity of the films aims and the lengths attended to in obtaining the footage (Pick 2013, 114). Further, this signifies that what is being observed is, typically, deliberately hidden. Therefore, Dominion is putting the viewer in the place of the camera. Where they are directly exposed to reality behind the veil, and thus compelled to also consider why it is hidden. Although, it is not only from hidden camera footage that attention is brought to humans being entertained by cruelty. Handheld cameras capture the widely accepted practices of rodeo, and horse and greyhound racing. In these cases, instead of hiding them the animals are there to be seen through the egocentric appearances that render them marginal, if not for human entertainment. This reveals that reality is not only physically hidden by external forces but is also conceptually hidden by the viewer them self. Dominion is then operating as a reminder of the viewer’s culpability in upholding such damaging engagement with the natural world. Shocking viewers merely by reorienting their perspective, to truly see themselves as guilty of ignorance. As the film’s narration alludes to, ego supports self-deception in creating a vision of the world that lowers or altogether eliminates animal suffering in human consumption (Delforce 2018).
This reveals that it is not just powerful entities that are active in concealing the reality of human’s responses to non-human animals (Packwood Freeman and Tulloch 2013, 113). The concealment is not only physical, but also conceptual and related to an egoistic comforting of conscience. This has been described as psychological and emotional barriers that support self-deception. Where what is there is chosen to be ignored (Packwood Freeman and Tulloch 2013, 113). As Murdoch states - there are difficult, psychological barriers to good (Murdoch 2013, 97). Therefore, from merely opening eyes subjects do not necessarily see. Illustrated by the common practice of horses being euthanised on racetracks after suffering injury from being forced to race. Subjects can and often see this, yet, still do not necessarily see its troubling reality. For as Murdoch claims the mind is usually self-occupied, creating a concealing and convenient veil (Murdoch 2013, 82). In the case of horse race attendees, their egocentric narratives devise a story that hides the reality of such practice’s viciousness. For they get comfort and pleasure from egocentric reinforcements of social status and financial gain that horseracing and the like enables. Thus, the truly encompassing depths of egocentrism’s reach are revealed in Dominion and can be understood as why humanity is compelled to hide some aspects of self-centred cruelty toward the natural world whilst other aspects are publicly embraced.
Therefore, Dominion is bringing attention to this contradiction. Further, to why subjects feel disgust at factory farm footage but barely notice the pain and deaths of those creatures used in socially acceptable entertainment. Early on, the film’s narration states, “Most people consider themselves animal lovers”, which is paired with the revelation that ‘most people’ are active participants in practices against animals that no one could call loving. It is pointing to a reality that is frequently un-seen. Individuals in an egocentric haze do not generally consider what is behind factory farming walls and how it relates to them for the same reasons they also do not consider what is happening in front of them. I believe that watching Dominion can readily cause un-selfing, for its footage and narration require viewers to be immersed in the storyline that uncovers discrepancy within the predominant view humans hold toward non-human others.
Dominion and sympathetic leading
I find Dominion to be relevant to Cora Diamond’s views expressed in Anything but Argument? As specified in the prior section, Diamond finds that artforms can invite subjects to share sympathetic attitude toward what is being shown to them. Leading them to different perspectives through drawing attention. This can disrupt egocentric viewing and change the way subjects see things to more truthful. Diamond states that this can operate as a paradigm where attention is drawn through a specific lens that incites pleasure or discomfort in the certain way that a matter is confronted (Diamond 1982, 33). Hence, the footage revealed in Dominion invites viewers to see in a different way and consider what it might mean to revel in such violent destruction of other living creatures. Also, cultivating a sense of the importance of questioning what is hidden in plain sight. Furthermore, Diamond expresses the significance of how subjects are affected by representations of their own ability to be moved (Diamond 1982, 31).
Thus, when viewers are met with these simple affections of human nature, they are led to mimic similar dispositions to those they would have from first-hand affection. What Diamond is then describing is that subjects are more easily absorbed by what they get pleasure from, that which can readily change their pragmatic engagement. In applying this to Dominion, I believe that the opening narration and editing of the film is of utmost importance. For that is when viewers are most likely to be engaged, which is achieved by the many shots of familiar interactions between humans and non-humans. Including, dogs and humans walking and playing in parks, and on beaches, and families together at zoos and farms. This engages viewers from the beginning, by immediately appealing to their affective recognition. Further, it is important this is at the beginning of the film. If it were not viewers may not connect in the way needed to follow the unveiling of truths that proceeds. This aspect enables the film more accessibility, thus heightens its ability to produce un-selfing.
Moreover, engaging with this film can be thought of as a practice in critical thinking. As Diamond identifies subjects should be critical of whether they are being led to sentimentalising or being delivered propaganda. I find that Dominion compels subjects to engage their critical capacities and leads them into the only way that they can truly see. For it pierces their egocentric gaze, which was already rife with propaganda and exposes them to the brutality which that can mask. Further, as stated above, this film is a response to propaganda and an attempt to offer more clarity and insight into the egocentric engagement that is typical of humans with the other. This is achieved in Dominion by its blatant expository nature and addressing of how humanity typically builds an untruthful narrative. Viewers are prompted to see past the self to what is truly there and question it. Namely that there is a false narrative surrounding humanity’s relationship with the natural world and if so, why? Therefore, Dominion invites the viewer to connect and see in a different way, then to respond critically to that way as a possibility. Ultimately, I find that Dominion’s exposure promotes the self-transcendence required to better respond to the natural world.
Okja
The second film that I will analyse for its ability to improve viewers’ relationship to the natural world is the 2017, speculative fiction film, Okja. This film was produced by Netflix and premiered at Cannes film festival in 2017. Okja was created by South-Korean director/writer Joon-Ho Bong, who is notorious for creating films with strong social commentary. The film’s overall direction, similarly, to Dominion, is to draw attention to and critique the practice of factory farming. Thus, it focuses upon one of the major ways that humans engage with the world that strongly reflects the damaging nature of egocentrism. The film also examines structures of inequality regarding gender, class, and culture. Moreover, Okja follows an action-adventure format that gives a portrayal of the cruelty inherent to post-industrial meat production that is quite unique to fiction film. Bong wields key cinematic techniques such as dialogue and cinematography to conduct Okja’s narrative, which follows an eco-centric, opposed to egocentric focus. A very basic overview of the film is – the two lead characters, Okja, a computer-generated image (CGI) ‘super pig’, and the young person, Mija, have grown up together on Mija’s Grandfather’s farm in rural South Korea. Furthermore, the two are in contention against Mirando Corporation, who I find to represent the dominating ideas and industries that egocentrically perceive and engage with the world.
Okja and sympathetic leading
Akin to Dominion, I find that Okja’s strength to promote un-selfing is also significantly linked to sympathetic leading. Okja invites viewers to center attention upon the perspectives of the leading characters. Thus, to sympathise with them, seeing them ‘in their own right’ and to consider an alternative perspective to the one that subjects’ ego presents. The film achieves this leading via presenting audiences with Mija and Okja and the significance of their relationship. Viewers are introduced to the two by way of a long visually focused glimpse into the everydayness of their relationship. Where small events solidify its significance. For reasons discussed above, Okja and Mija’s relationship is engaging for it is one that many can recognize in having experienced themselves. Either with other humans or the non-human animals that they may share their life. Thus, viewers are led to assume the disposition of care towards the characters as it is presented in the film, which is significant as the film progresses, and their relationship is jeopardized by the ego driven Mirando Corporation. As this occurs, audiences are led to side and sympathise with the film’s protagonists, thus, to side with the non-egocentric vision they perpetuate.
Therefore, the film promotes sympathy for the characters as it also does for what they represent. This being a more simplistic, humble and un-selfed way of life. They draw attention to the significance of a more sustainable and truthful relation to the natural world. Illustrated particularly well by subtle elements of the story that reveal the protagonists engaging with the natural world very differently to the dominant, egocentric ways. This includes a scene showing the two catching fish together, in which they only capture one and Mija purposely throws back another that is too small. This brings attention to a respectful appreciation of the natural world and invites viewers to contrast this engagement against standard consumption practices. Another prominent example of these subtle story elements that establish the film’s attention guiding is the revelation that Mija’s favourite food is chicken soup. I find these elements suggest that the target of the film’s critique is not necessarily consuming non-human creatures, but more so the damaging, egocentric, overconsumption that this process has invited, that which has become standard.
Moreover, as explanation to Okja’s exceptional health, Mija’s grandfather states “I just let her run around” (Bong 2017). Then later in the film, after Okja has been confined by Mirando Corporation, her health is shown to have obviously, dramatically declined. Even though subtle, I find this also powerfully brings attention to the contrasting effects on non-human animals from being allowed space to roam and undertake their natural behaviours opposed to being cramped in unnatural, and cruel conditions. That which they are subjected to in the ego-driven, factory farm framework. Further, that when allowed to live in alignment with their nature they are evidently healthier. This can incite thought in the viewer about what others are subjected to for our use, how fish, chickens and other non-human animals are typically engaged with. Moreover, to consider the difference between catching one fish for food opposed to large scale fishing trawlers that kill an overwhelming number of creatures, many of which will not even be used for food or otherwise. Moreover, Okja achieves this significant contrasting via use of colours and soundtrack that descend to darker and more chaotic tones as the protagonists are further consumed by the untruthful egoism that surrounds them. Thus, through this, viewers are immersed into the emotional journey of seeing the destructive nature of self-serving engagement with the natural world.
Irony
Furthermore, I find how Okja enables moral transformation to be particularly through the film’s overt irony. As Diamond argues, irony can be a tool to engage attention toward moral concerns. Moreover, sympathy and an element of intellectual understanding play a role in irony succeeding to morally transform. As addressed above, I believe the film to be quite successful at producing sympathy for the protagonists and what they represent. Furthermore, I find Okja’s irony to be palpable to viewers for it is not subverted but an apparent and direct critique of certain engagement with the natural world. Bong even states of Okja “I do want my audience to consider… where the food on their plate comes from… if one is to do that, I believe the level of meat consumption will gradually decline” (Loughrey 2017). This gives further clarity to the unobscured intention of the film and the overt nature of its ironic tone. This being a is satiric, absurdist, social commentary that dissects the domineering egocentric narrative in which monetary wealth and the comfort of assuming dominant beliefs bear more significance than the natural world, the other, non-human animals. A few of the film’s aspects draw attention to this particularly well, including, the symbolic use of a small, inanimate, golden pig whose worth is pitted against that of the very animate Okja. Mija’s grandfather gives her this object assuming it to be an adequate replacement for Okja when she is taken away by Mirando Corporation. Then, near the end of the film, in an emotional climax, Mija purchases back Okja from Mirando Corporation, with the golden pig. If it were not for this they would have killed her on the stated belief that “we can only sell dead ones” (Bong 2017). This further solidifies the film’s ironic critique upon the typical view of the natural world that does not recognise its worth outside of self-centred greed.
Thus, the irony brings attention to these problems, using absurd humour juxtaposed with often dark and troubling scenes, to highlight that they are problems and deserve critique. Furthermore, as mentioned in the discussion of Dominion, organisations and individuals often uphold certain false views and narratives surrounding their engagement with the natural world, as a means of appeasing egocentrism. A major example of this, that is heavily parodied in Okja, is ‘greenwashing’. This is a very common and manipulative practice that harnesses certain phrasing, such as ‘natural’ and ‘eco-friendly’, not due to genuine regard for the natural world, but to gain prestige. For people respond well to the ideals that this represents and, due to egocentrism’s nature, can be easily led to believe these claims as the truth without any further consideration. As it is easy to reside in the comforts of false belief. When indeed this is egoistic propaganda that masks reality and is used for nothing more than self-gain.
Furthermore, Mirando Corporation, is epitomised by the company’s CEO, Lucy Mirando. This character is a self-asserted ‘environmentalist’. She is an absurd representation of those who make outlandishly false claims about the ecological and moral effects of their engagement with the natural world. Mirando ironically refers to the ‘super-pigs’ as non-genetically modified, with no attempt to present sound evidence of this. Further claiming that they are the solution to world hunger and to the environmental destruction caused by factory farming. Although, as the film descends into the dank and horrific scenes behind the veil of Mirando Corporation, it is evident that the only real concern is egocentric profit. By way of cinematic techniques, it is revealed that the same brutal means of production are used with the super-pigs as any factory farm. Finally, the company decides to abandon their attempts at greenwashing, adopting the attitude “if it’s cheap, they eat it” (Bong 2017). This suggests an element of blame to not only the wider structures that enable such untruthful engagement but also to the individuals who contribute to its continuation. Greenwashing is an act of deception that both producers and consumers adhere to. Therefore, this film invites viewers to question their associations and the egotistical propaganda that may be obscuring their vision.
Another use of character that ironically inspires critique of egocentrism is ‘Dr Johnny Wilcox’. Wilcox brings attention to the absurdity of the animal-lover narrative, also the wider, entwined implications of egocentrism. He states “I shouldn’t be here. I am an animal lover. Everybody knows that about me” as he intentionally harms Okja. Moreover, he does this even against the orders of his boss, Lucy Mirando. Thus, Wilcox’s actions are presented as a malevolent response to being embarrassed by Lucy and being displaced in his significance to the company. Therefore, more than just the engagement between human and non-human, the film comments on how humanity engages with one another and can be understood as addressing how egocentrism frequently manifests within all relations between individuals and the natural world.
Accessibility
Both Okja and Dominion convey similar moral messages and can produce self-transcending effects in drawing attention to the natural world and revealing appearances divorced of egocentrism. Yet, I find Okja to be elevated in its ability to affect transformation of individuals. This is related to what I find to be Okja’s heightened influential power. There are a couple of reasons as to why I claim that it is particularly accessible in comparison to Dominion. Firstly, due to its being situated on the story sharing platform, Netflix. As discussed in the prior section, Netflix is seemingly the latest evolution of meeting places where connection can be made through engaging with shared stories. Therefore, this fact alone, immediately elevates this film’s advantage over Dominion to reach subjects. For it seems apparent that people are particularly attentive to films that are readily shareable. Furthermore, this gives an indication as to why there is a petition to have Dominion added to Netflix (Aussie Farms 2018). For it would allow the film an elevated accessibility through being at the centre of contemporary story sharing. Even so, I still believe Dominion would not be quite as effective as Okja in its capacity to induce moral transformation.
This is due to there being another more significant element to Okja’s accessibility. That is the form that it comes in, its fictional presentation, which I identify to be less confronting to the egocentric self. McGinn establishes that we crave fiction and that humanity has always been drawn to fictional narratives (McGinn 2005, 7-8). Throughout history, these have frequently been turned to in furthering our understanding of reality. Indeed, many people are aversive to abrupt confrontation to their egoistic narrative and avoid watching realist, documentary film, such as Dominion. Yet, readily enjoy fictional stories that can similarly challenge their beliefs but in a covert way. As McGinn states, the psychological power of a representation of a thing is stronger than the power of that thing (McGinn 2005, 7). In the case of Okja, the film is a fictional representation, involving science-fictional elements, which further abstracts and makes its message and un-selfing potential less confronting and more enjoyable. This point is illustrated by the title character, Okja, who instead of being a ‘real’ animal, is a CGI, ‘super pig’, whose appearance resembles that of several non-human creatures, most closely pigs and hippopotamuses. Furthermore, by way of this Okja can be understood as representational of all the animals that humanity egocentrically engages with as mere objects to impose upon and use.
Yet, ultimately Okja is fantastical and quite removed from ‘real’ animals of the natural world. Although, displacing the animals from their reality can be problematic, as seen with the case of The Adventures of Milo and Otis, I believe that Okja does not lead to an ego inflation from such damaging anthropomorphising. For, even though Okja is abstracted, the creature is still entwined in a truthful representation of real-world animals. Okja does not overtly assume human traits, instead is a fantastical creature who exhibits real behaviours, akin to those of the animals which are being represented. Therefore, when viewers see the fantastic creature, they are conceptually drawn to see the real creatures. Yet, I find that the effects would not be quite the same if the fantasy pig was replaced by a real pig. For in being the step abstracted, the fantasy creature requires viewers to further conceptualise and engage their moral imagination and in doing so are less confronted and defensive. For even though the fantasy is directing to the real, the viewers must ultimately conclude what the link is and what the fictional story is suggesting about reality. Thus, they are not directly being told what is truthful and how to engage but are led to determine the truth for themselves. Therefore, in drawing viewers’ attention while maintaining a level of abstraction, the film is significantly less likely to produce counterproductive affects.
Although the extent to which film can positively transform viewers to un-self and engage with the natural world is a difficult thing to measure, I find Okja’s strength to improve subjects’ engagement with non-human animals as evidenced by the discourse that ensued after the film’s release. Heightened discussion emerged surrounding how the film illuminated the horror of factory farming, which is highly significant considering there already existed many non-fictional films attending to this very issue. Moreover, many viewers made claims alluding to the film moving them to see what was otherwise not. Further, that they felt compelled to be more conscious of what they were eating, potentially moving to vegetarianism or veganism. This is exemplified by, but by no means limited to, comments made by one viewer and film journalist who alludes to Okja revealing to them the reality of how humans engage with non-human animals. Furthermore, elaborating upon their prior, and quite common, view that did not allow consideration of the meat they ate as the flesh of other animals that have been sacrificed, often for commercial greed. However, after watching Okja this became apparent to them and they were moved to transform (Taubin 2017). Furthermore, the film’s director himself stated “In the process of making this movie, my level of meat consumption has decreased” (Kohn 2017). Thus, evidently, the film has promoted moral transformation and, seemingly, significantly more than other non-fictional film. Therefore, I believe that this indicates a powerful potential for film to produce un-selfing and moral transformation, which can improve the way subjects engage with the natural world. Although, there is also something specifically unique to fictional representation within film that can amplify this potential.
References
Aertson, Victor. 2017. "Sympathy for Fictional Characters: An Examination of the Factors Involved from a Social Psychology and Cognitive Film Theory Perspective." Doxa Comunicacion 107-128.
Aussie Farms. 2018. Aussie Farms Repository. Accessed August 13, 2019. https://www.dominionmovement.com/.
2019. Aussie Farms Repository. Accessed September 17, 2019. https://www.dominionmovement.com/about.
2017. Okja. Directed by Joon-Ho Bong.
Chang, Chia-Ju. 2013. "The Art of Self-Emptying and Ecological Integration." In Screening Nature: Cinema Beyond the Human, by A, Narraway, G Pick, 225-240. Berghahn Books.
2018. Dominion. Directed by Chris Delforce.
Diamond, Cora. 1982. "Anything but Argument?" Philosophical Investigations 23-41.
Elsaesser, Thomas, and Malte Hagener. 2015. Film Theory: An Introduction Through the Senses. Routledge.
2001. Iris. Directed by Richard Eyre.
Fredriksson, Antony. 2018. "The Art of Attention in Documentary Film and Werner Herzog." Film-Philosophy 60-75.
Gaita, Raimond. 2002. The Philosopher's Dog.
Hamalainen, Nora. 2015. "Reduce Ourselves to Zero? Sabina Lovibond, Iris Murdoch, and Feminism." Hypatia 743-759.
1986. The Adventures of Milo and Otis. Directed by Masanori Hata.
Heyd, Thomas' Guillaume Bertrand. 2016. "The Natural Contract in The Anthropocene." Environmental ethics 209-227.
Kohn, Eric. 2017. IndieWire. June 7. Accessed September 17, 2019. https://www.indiewire.com/2017/06/okja-bong-joon-ho-vegan-1201839076/.
Loughrey, Clarisse. 2017. Independent. June 25. Accessed September 5, 2019. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/okja-interview-bong-joon-ho-release-date-netflix-veganism-vegan-cannes-controversy-a7807771.html.
Martin-Jones, David. 2016. "Trolls, Tigers and Transmodern Ecological Encounters: Enrique Dussel and a Cine-ethics for the Anthropocene." Film-Philosophy 63-103.
McGinn, Colin. 2005. The Power of Movies. New York: Pantheon Books.
Murdoch, Iris. 2013. "On 'God' and 'Good'." In The Sovereignty of Good Over Other Concepts, by Iris Murdoch, 45-74.
Murdoch, Iris. 2014. "The Idea of Perfection." In The Sovereignty of Good , by Iris Murdoch, 1-44. New York: Routledge .
Murdoch, Iris. 2013. "The Sovereignty of Good Over Other Concepts." In The Sovereignty of Good, by Iris Murdoch, 75-101.
—. 1956. Vogue 100. August. Accessed July 4, 2019. https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/vogue-archive-article-iris-murdoch.
Olsson, Anna-Lova. 2018. "A Moment of Letting Go: Iris Murdoch and the Morally Transformative Process of Unselfing." Journal of Philosophy of Education 163-177.
Packwood Freeman, Carrie, and Scott Tulloch. 2013. "I Was Blind But Now I See." In Screening Nature: Cinema Beyond the Human, by A Pick and G Narraway, 110-126.
Pick, Anat. 2013. "Three Worlds: Dwelling and Worldhood on Screen." In Screening Nature: Cinema Beyond the Human, by Anat Pick and G Narraway, 21-36.
Taubin, Amy. 2017. "Free Range." Film Comment, July - August: 28-32.
[1] I understand that this can be a complicated term. I want to make clear that what I mean by ‘natural world’ is quite a general understanding. It is all the plants, animals, and other living or non-living things existing in the universe that do so regardless of human alteration.
[2] My use of these concepts predominantly draws from Iris Murdoch’s thought. Furthermore, this is not the only thought on this matter. Yet, it is Murdoch’s view and I find quite illuminating for the purposes of my discussion.
[3] That said, Murdoch also finds humans to be situated toward truth and justice.
[4] For reasons to be discussed below, the characterisation of egocentrism is up for debate.
[5] Interestingly, both these examples could be described as artistic. They emerged from experiences of the natural world yet morphed into artistic literary expressions that can then affect readers and produce similar moral transformations in them. Similarly, so do the nature writings that I mentioned earlier. Thoreau’s Walden is an example of his moral transformation through the natural world, become novel, and thus artistic medium accessible to incite change in others.
[6] I also acknowledge the significance of literary works to promote truthful engagement with the natural world. Yet, I find film to have heightened potential. The reasons to which will become clearer in the following.
[7] This is a contested idea that many thinkers, including Stanley Cavell and Noel Carrol, have discussed in further depth.
[8] This could also be said of engaging with literature.
[9] More could be said on how a film is experienced. I.E. whether it is in a public cinema, home theatre, or on the small screen of a mobile device. Yet, due to the confines of this paper, I will just commit to saying that I believe similar effects can be produced no matter how the film is viewed.
[10] Although through certain perspectives, this film could still be considered to produce un-selfing effects. There is a line of philosophical thought that considers the subjective relationship between film, filmmaker, and subject and allows that even an untruthful film could still impart something beneficial. For a film may be interpreted and then said interpretation can be critically engaged with. Thus, due to the subjective experience of engaging with film and the meaning that emerges from that, even an egocentric film, such as this, could produce truthful insight and moral transformation.
[11] I do not assume that only eco-cinema film can achieve this.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Trumpism and the Tyranny of the Minority
by Mitch Maley — I'm often asked why self-described patriots seem to be okay with fascism or how those who scream in defense of concepts such as liberty and freedom can fail to be troubled by our slide toward totalitarianism, but such questions seem to miss the larger point.
Trumpism isn't a new phenomenon or even unique to the man at its helm. It is simply the logical end point for the so-called Tea Party movement that has completely taken over traditional conservatism in the past decade, a movement that aims to fully impose the will of a minority, even if their views are grossly out of step with most Americans.
In that sense, 2010 was the official end of bipartisan government, the moment the opposition became the enemy. It became more dangerous to reach across the aisle than to sit on your hands and do nothing, unless you could do everything your constituents wanted. It became a zero sum game in which half a loaf of bread was worse than none at all.
Make no mistake, extremism—whether it comes from the right or the left—is always about minority rule. Otherwise, the beliefs would be mainstream. Donald Trump was only the fourth president in U.S. history to lose the popular vote and win the electoral college, and he did it with less of a share of the total vote (46.9) than any of the others. Not once during his presidency has his approval rate hit 50 percent, and it's recently been as low as 35.
I point this out because to hear his supporters tell it, they are part of a silent majority, despite what the math tells us. However, minority rule has been at the core of this movement from the beginning—at least for its architects. From restrictive voting laws clearly meant to suppress opposition turnout (including the current misinformation campaign on vote by mail) to packing the courts with judges that hold views grossly out of step with the majority of Americans and seeking to subvert the Supreme Court decision on a woman's right to choose with laws meant to curtail the ability of women to access abortion under bogus pretenses, the right-wing platform has increasingly become about a minority of people imposing their beliefs on a majority who find them objectionable.
Sure, there are memes, slogans and talking points that attempt to rationalize things like voter ID laws, limitations on early voting, requiring OBGYNs to have admitting privileges near their clinics or that the clinics to be expensively retrofitted to meet arbitrary codes, and on and on across a broad spectrum of issues, but when you read the literature of the think tanks and policy groups that craft such legislation, their objective is clear: How do we get what we want, without the power of the majority behind us?
One way is to argue that the rules favor the minority view, which is why there are always so many lay constitutional scholars ready to tell us how things like universal health care, mask mandates during a pandemic, sensible environmental regulation and other policies favored by a majority of Americans run afoul of the founder's intent, even if those same experts fail to find their voice each time this president tramples on the Constitution on behalf of something they agree with.
But gerrymandering districts so that you can keep at least part of Congress under your control despite getting less total Congressional votes cycle after cycle, or packing courts with sympathetic judges who might uphold the unconstitutional laws you are able to get passed is part of the kind of long game most people don't have patience for. In the end, if you want to see your country look exactly the way you want—and most of your fellow Americans do not share your vision—there is only one route: ceding power to a totalitarian dictator who has been able to turn minority support into presidential power and is willing to dance to any song his supporters play, so long as they provide the means for him to remain in power—legitimately or otherwise.
It is in this effort that fascism becomes quite useful, for it allows the minority to actually claim defense of our freedoms against an enemy that can now be identified as the other, an outsider group who they don't need to count among their numbers, as those people are now the enemy, making for a false reality in which they are no longer a minority but rather a majority of real Americans who love their country and are therefore intent on stopping the evil others at all costs.
Fascism is, at its core, not an ideology. Most simply put, it is an attack from the right on the left, on the basis that the central tenets of liberalism represent a constant threat of socialist takeover that is always close to being upon us. Draped in nationalism and an appeal to a brand of inherent righteousness most commonly found in religious movements, it should be no surprise that its adherents often espouse rhetoric that is just as dogmatic and evangelical.
Conversely, socialism is, in many ways, a similar attack on the perceived inherent evils of capitalism. Like fascist revolutions, socialist ones routinely justify violent insurrection, theft and even the execution of those who do not bend their knee, as necessary nearly to the point of being benevolent—regardless of the majority's will. One need not look further than the recent upheaval in Seattle, where a group of left-wing radicals vandalized private property while occupying six city blocks and making ridiculous demands until eventually devolving into the deadly chaos of a miniature failed state. The means to take power already exist through democratic channels, but because a majority is needed to seize it, the malcontent convince themselves that such a system is inherently corrupt to the degree that such criminal reappropriations are not only justified but completely necessary in order to force their minority view on the rest of the community who so desperately needs to live by it, even if they don’t realize it yet.
What the extreme left and extreme right have in common is an unwavering belief that there is but one way to do things—theirs. The big difference, however, is that while the extreme left doesn't even like the Democratic Party, even the progressive left is but a fringe force in a party almost wholly controlled by right of center NeoLiberals who drape themselves in progressive slogans, while remaining contemptuous of progressive politics.
Meanwhile, the Tea Party movement has, in just 10 years, completely vanquished the NeoConservative forces that preceded it as the power center of the Republican Party. Trump's election in 2016 signaled the passing of the torch, or rather it being pried from the cold, dead hands of the House of Bush. The extreme right, very much unlike the extreme left, is in control, with both the White House and the Senate under its wing. Those who haven't bent their knee in fealty to Trump and his tribe like former NeoCon stalwarts Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley and Mitch McConnell have, have either been marooned in a political no man’s land (Mitt Romney) or have gotten out.
What's left of the NeoConservative Republicans is now part of team Biden, seeing far more commonality with the NeoLiberals than Trump's crowd. That should be no surprise. The majority of Democrats and Republicans of 2000-2010 disagreed on little when it came down to brass tacks. Sure, they dangled identity politics, social issues and class warfare as red meat for the crowd, but when it came to Wall Street, globalization, bad trade deals and forever wars, they had much in common and were happy to divy the loot.
Of course, if you're a Trump supporter, you might be inclined to think something totally different. To hear his campaign frame the 2020 election, he's not running against the guy who wrote the crime bill, voted for every war and military spending bill ever put before him and routinely worked across the aisle to make deals. No, they're running against Antifa, AOC, looters in Portland and the impending socialist revolution that will always be on the verge of taking over, lest Donald J. Trump protects us.
Why? Because there's not a very sound argument for minority rule or trading democracy for autocracy to get it, unless the wolves are at the door and your only choices are giving up your freedoms or being eaten alive. For many Trump supporters, the constant rhetoric and propaganda has led them to a place where they truly believe there's that much at stake in November. It doesn't matter that the streets were peaceful when he took office or that Americans have never been as divided as they have become under his rule, at least since the Civil War. That's not because of his actions. In their minds, it's in spite of them. If Biden were to win, every American city would be overtaken by violent leftists, AOC and the Squad would be pulling his strings, and their country would become unrecognizable. Of course they would hand over any power needed to the one man who could save them from such horrors.
For the rest of us, the country has already become unrecognizable since 2016, and in the worst way possible. We're living their nightmare and the notion that four more years of Trump (or perhaps more, given his regular references to deserving a third term) might indeed see the United States slide into a totalitarian autocracy in which dissenters or even those deemed insufficiently enthusiastic about Dear Leader could be sent off to the gulags seems all too possible. The only thing that remains certain is that it won't be over on November 3, no matter who wins. America is at the crossroads of a cultural reckoning, and it will take more than just a presidential election for it to fully play out.
Dennis “Mitch” Maley has been a journalist for more than two decades. A former Army Captain, he has a degree in government from Shippensburg University and is the author of several books, which can be found here.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Sense and Sensibility (1995)
I’ve been on a long hiatus from this blog. Between applying to grad school, getting in, and wrapping up my first semester, I’ve had a strange schedule this past year, and maintaining the blog fell by the wayside. But now that it’s 2019, I’ve resolved to diligently write up everything I read; and everyone knows that New Year’s Resolutions never fail.
Sense and Sensibility was Austen’s earliest published novel, and it shows in many ways. The plot slows down to a snail’s pace in the middle portion of the book, as the sisters wait for plot developments to unfold. The romantic heroes, Edward Ferrars and Colonel Brandon, are not fully fleshed out, nor are their relationships with our female heroines described in detail, making their happy endings less convincing than they could have been. Furthermore, Edward and Elinor’s relationship is rescued by a deus ex machina, due to Edward’s ostensibly admirable integrity (and its accompanying passivity, in refusing to break off his engagement with Lucy Steele); meanwhile, Colonel Brandon’s relationship with Marianne is not only troubling from a modern perspective due to its two-decade age gap, it is also described as a “reward” for Colonel Brandon’s efforts, with Marianne being described as a “prize.”
Austen’s satirical powers are on full display here, but she didn’t temper her satire with as much warmth as in her other novels. Sense and Sensibility doesn’t successfully strike the same balance as, for example, Pride and Prejudice; there are simply too many obnoxious characters, that one wonders how Elinor had the patience to spend so much of the novel being even facially polite to such annoying characters; and although Austen’s famously comic scenes are present, not enough of Austen’s signature generosity and humanity shine through.
Interestingly, Austen reserves some of her kindness and forgiveness for Willoughby, arguably the main villain of the book. I understand the impulse; with Willoughby, Austen seemed to be trying to make a point about the importance of education and employment in building character, despite the natural gifts of nature that Willoughby possessed, and his inherent lack of malice. But Austen’s compassion seems to have been misplaced. Willoughby inspires too much moral repugnance to really be forgiven by the reader, and Austen spends far too much time rehabilitating him than is necessary, instead prolonging the novel and ending it on a strange note. Also, there was a very objectionable judgment that lay in Willoughby’s final speech; Willoughby (and Austen by extension) seems to imply that Eliza’s fate was partially her own fault, because she was not as bright nor as educated as Marianne—while Marianne, in possession of greater “understanding,” deserved better treatment. It’s a strange judgment to make, and the corresponding subplot in Pride and Prejudice was definitely handled better.
Having watched previous films by Ang Lee—The Wedding Banquet, Eat Drink Man Woman—I was unsurprised to find him directing this film about romance and marriage in the context of familial and societal restrictions. The film happily tries to clear up many of the problems I found with the novel; it deletes some of the extraneous characters who existed mostly for Austen to sharpen her wit; it gets rid of the misplaced attempt to rehabilitate Willoughby; and it fleshes out both Edward and Colonel Brandon (especially Edward, who becomes a much more sympathetic character here). I found Hugh Grant’s portrayal of Edward super adorable, actually, and I personally think that the alteration to Edward’s portrayal is what places the movie much closer to a romance than a drama and character study. However, the film is weighed down by the structure of the original novel—i.e., Edward only appears towards the beginning and the end, and is conspicuously absent in the middle.
Also, as a side note: I was glad to see how the film tries to be more class conscious, in showing how Elinor dealt with Dashwood servants and in giving the servants names. This was definitely a modern improvement.
Having ranted for so long about how the movie addressed the deficiencies of the novel, I should definitely mention some aspects of the novel that I really liked, even if it was difficult to translate to the screen. The novel’s main concern is, of course, not necessarily with romance, but with descriptions and judgments of people. What makes a good person, and what makes a good person admirable as well? Austen seems to suggest through this novel that a good person is kind and generous, warm-hearted, and truly modest; but what makes a good person admirable on top of these traits is intelligence, applied to hard work and industry through education and employment. Austen also makes digressions into taste and elegance, and how each is formed. This aspect of Austen’s novels is harder to translate to screen, and although the screenplay lightly suggests it sometimes, the movie necessarily focuses less on these themes and questions.
I also wanted to point out several visual cues in the film that I was disappointed to see. The “villains”—the unlikeable female characters—all had dark hair, including Fanny Dashwood and Lucy Steele, while the three Dashwood girls had beautiful blonde curls. I see this visual trope pop up again and again and … I just don’t like it. (Would Elizabeth Bennet have been blonde in movie portrayals if the book didn’t specify that she had dark hair?) I also found the casting of Charlotte Palmer very strange—the producers chose Imelda Staunton, who I think is a fantastic actress, but also about twenty years older at the time of the film than Charlotte Palmer in the novel. Not only was Staunton older, she was also costumed with gray hair and matronly clothes. The film seems to use beauty and youth to visually suggest “good” and “admirable” whenever possible, which totally voids the point of Austen’s novel. Charlotte Palmer is described as very pretty, and a young and recent bride in the novel—she’s kindhearted and generous, but that doesn’t prevent her from being a bit silly. Her beauty is integral to the reader’s understanding of her marriage to Mr. Palmer, someone who fell for her looks without really considering her his intellectual equal. Austen frequently contrasts this kind of external beauty with internal character—for example, in the character of Willoughby. (Since Willoughby’s handsome figure is described again and again, the film didn’t really deviate from the novel on that score.) But elsewhere, whenever possible, producers and directors still try to use visual shortcuts, equating (blonde) beauty and youth with goodness and (dark-haired) plainness and age with unimportance or even villainy. I have no words. It just ANNOYS me.
In a similar strain, I think one of the great strengths of Austen’s novels is her kindness and humanity, and I wish the film had added another line or two about Mrs. Jennings. Even though her character is a comic one, she gets her deserved treatment in the book, when Marianne regrets being rude to her although Mrs. Jennings has always been kind to her. It’s a dynamic that Austen clearly cared a lot about (see Emma and Miss Bates)—that finding humor in people who are a bit silly does not equal being kind to them. I wish the film had taken more note.
However, apart from these nitpicky opinions, I really enjoyed both the novel and film, and I think they each complete the other. The novel holds Austen’s wit and humor, and her insightful analyses of people and what make them tick; the film is a more enjoyable and balanced romance, with beautiful set-pieces and music. And both star a truly moving pair of sisters who love and value each other above all.
Sense and Sensibility (1995) was originally published on Friends, Romans, Countrymen
0 notes
Text
TikTok’s Beijing roots fuel censorship suspicion as it builds a huge U.S. audience
By Drew Harwell and Tony Romm | Published September 15 at 4:30 PM ET | Washington Post | Posted September 15, 2019 8:00 PM ET |
A search for “#hongkong” on Twitter reveals a vast visual patchwork of the city’s unavoidable protests, including pro-China agitprop, sympathetic memes and imagery from the hundreds of thousands of pro-democracy marchers who have braved police crackdowns.
But the same searches for Hong Kong on TikTok, the short-video app from a Beijing-based tech giant that has gone viral in the U.S., reveal a remarkably different — and, for the Chinese government, more politically convenient — version of reality: playful selfies, food photos and singalongs, with barely a hint of unrest in sight.
TikTok has quickly become one of America’s most popular mobile apps, a flashy, frenetic, video playground beloved by teens and downloaded more than 110 million times across the U.S. With its blend of goofy memes, fast-twitch skits and chart-topping earworms like “Old Town Road,” the app has quickly become China’s most successful social-media export abroad and a global phenomenon, installed by 1.3 billion users around the world.
Celebrities are also flocking to the app, including New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, whose first video post — a season-opener supercut posted Tuesday, set to rapper Young Thug’s “Hot” — coincided with TikTok’s new multiyear marketing deal with the NFL. TikTok has ranked among the world’s most-downloaded apps for the last 18 months, according to data provided by the research firm Sensor Tower. U.S. viewers have spent more than $37 million over the last two years on virtual coins for their favorite creators, TikTok’s primary way of making money.
But researchers have grown worried that the app could also prove to be one of China’s most effective weapons in the global information war, bringing Chinese-style censorship to mainstream U.S. audiences and shaping how they understand real-world events. Compounding researchers’ concerns are TikTok’s limited public comments about the content it removes and its purported independence from censors in Beijing.
TikTok’s parent company ByteDance said in a statement that U.S. user data is stored domestically and that the app’s content and moderation policies in the U.S. are led by a U.S.-based team not influenced by the Chinese government. ByteDance repeatedly declined to make executives available for on-the-record interviews.
In its statement, the company defended TikTok as a place for entertainment, not politics, and said its audience gravitates there for positive and joyful content as a possible explanation for why so few videos relate to sensitive topics such as the protests in Hong Kong.
The company declined to provide details of how the app is policed in the U.S. or how the U.S. team shields itself from being influenced by authorities in Beijing, where ByteDance is headquartered. Officials in the Chinese embassy did not respond to requests for comment.
TikTok’s surging popularity spotlights the tension between the Web’s global powers: the United States, where free speech and competing ideologies are held as (sometimes messy) societal bedrocks, and China, where political criticism is forbidden as troublemaking.
TikTok’s Chinese counterpart, researchers say, remains captive to the ruling regime’s ideas of appropriate content and censorship, and they point to the way the nation’s Communist Party has used it as a propaganda vessel for young audiences that might otherwise not seek out state-media news.
Yaqiu Wang, a Hong Kong-based researcher for Human Rights Watch, said the Hong Kong protests marked one of the first big tests of how Chinese companies could project the government’s dogmas to a global audience.
“They are making the commercial media repost or reproduce what has been produced by state media. And they are forcing censorship to create a narrative in the sense that this is not what happened,” Wang said. “For Chinese companies, the government has so much control. You have no choice. If it’s politically sensitive, your company is in jeopardy.”
Long seen as a launchpad for viral memes, TikTok in the U.S. is entering a kind of social-media adolescence, expanding into a new public square for young viewers to learn about and riff off current events. Videos with the #trump2020 hashtag, for instance, have accrued more than 70 million views: One clip by user CountryGirl9352, in which she lip-syncs Trump’s complaint about plastic straws, has received more than 500 comments and 10,000 likes.
It’s impossible to know what videos are censored on TikTok: ByteDance’s decisions about the content it surfaces or censors are largely opaque. The company provides no information about the videos it removes for violating its prohibitions against hate speech or extremism, and it does not offer the kinds of tools that would make the platform accessible to outside research. It’s also possible that users in Hong Kong could be self-censoring by not posting politically fraught content onto an app closely scrutinized by Chinese censors.
But popular hashtags used by Hong Kong protester that have spread widely across other social media barely exist on TikTok.
The #antielab hashtag, a central organizing post named for protesters’ resistance to an extradition bill seen as weakening Hong Kong sovereignty, has more than 34,000 posts on Instagram but only 11 posts on TikTok, totaling about 3,000 views. The hashtags for #HongKongProtests and #HongKongProtestors, some of the biggest rallying points on Twitter, return either a single video or an error message: “Couldn’t find this hashtag: Check out trending videos.” The #HongKongProtest hashtag showed six videos, totaling about 5,000 views.
Searches on the TikTok app in the U.S. using Chinese characters produce similar results. A main protest hashtag (反送中), used to refer to the anti-extradition movement, shows about 100 videos totaling roughly 105,000 views. For comparison, a hashtag for #snails on TikTok has more than 6.6 million views.
TikTok’s parent company has offered limited information about its mix of human and algorithmic censors, which scan videos and remove blacklisted words and images. The company’s chief said last year it would employ 10,000 moderators to flag and remove content following a crackdown from Chinese regulators targeting the app’s “improper content.”
That lack of transparency, alongside the company’s Chinese roots, appears to have become a point of satire for some TikTok users. The #TiananmenSquare hashtag — named for the sprawling Beijing center where military forces in 1989 killed thousands of people following pro-democracy protests, a massacre strictly censored across China — shows about 20 videos, most of which joked that the bloody episode never happened.
Organized online Chinese campaigns to disparage Hong Kong protesters, researchers said, also suggest that ByteDance could be used to influence global perceptions. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube last month said they had removed fake accounts, including some disguised as everyday Americans, that had praised the government and portrayed the protesters as terrorists and cockroaches.
“If they’re willing to do this on Twitter and Facebook, of course they’re going to want to do it on their own platform,” said Elliott Zaagman, a writer and co-host of a popular podcast on the Chinese tech industry.
Despite TikTok’s growing popularity in the U.S., the app has barely registered in Washington’s ruling circles. Many lawmakers perhaps first heard of the company when a Facebook executive pointed to its rise at a hearing this year as evidence that Facebook didn’t hold a monopoly on people’s attention spans online.
In February, the Federal Trade Commission fined the company $5.7 million over allegations it violated rules meant to protect kids’ privacy online. FTC watchdogs said that the precursor to TikTok, the karaoke app Musical.ly, illegally collected names, email addresses, pictures and other data from children younger than 13.
ByteDance has since sought to introduce itself to regulators, registering its first lobbyist in June and hiring additional outside consultants a month later, federal ethics filings show.
ByteDance has been named the world’s most valuable start-up thanks to massive investments from tech powerhouses such as Japan’s SoftBank Group that have valued it at more than $75 billion. (Uber, for comparison, is worth less than $60 billion.)
Founded in 2012, ByteDance now owns a stable of news, video and selfie apps, most of which are used almost exclusively in China. But in Silicon Valley, TikTok is regarded as having traced a uniquely enviable rise, becoming the first Chinese app to truly pierce the global Internet mainstream.
TikTok closely resembles its Chinese counterpart, Douyin, which ByteDance makes available only to audiences in mainland China. The app has become one of the most popular conduits of news and entertainment in the world’s second-largest economy, and it has been celebrated in state media as a homegrown success story well-suited to disseminate the government’s ideology.
State-endorsed propaganda is commonplace, said Zaagman, who compared it to the hidden medicine in a dog’s food bowl: a heap of fun videos that make it easier to swallow a dash of nationalism.
ByteDance must comply with China’s “Great Firewall,” which blocks major news sources and censors what the party regards as objectionable facts and ideas. Social-media platforms in China are required by law to purge political dissent, and TikTok’s Chinese counterpart has banned a broad range of supposedly subversive topics, including any content that causes “discomfort.”
Among the censored images, the state-run newspaper Global Times said last year, was the children’s cartoon Peppa Pig, which it said had become associated with “unruly slackers roaming around and the antithesis of the young generation the Party tries to cultivate.” (ByteDance later rebutted that claim, and Peppa Pig lives on in TikTok streams in the U.S.)
Patriotic messages have dominated Douyin in the weeks since the Hong Kong protests began: People’s Daily, the party’s official media outlet, posted a video last week of Hong Kong police taking a break after work, which received 1.1 million “likes” and about 40,000 comments.
TikTok’s owners have also routinely bent to government demands and intervention. ByteDance last year was forced to dismantle its popular comedy app Neihan Duanzi (roughly translated, “implied jokes”) following a government purge, during which Chinese regulators said the app’s “vulgar and improper content” had violated social morals and “caused strong disgust.”
ByteDance founder Zhang Yiming, one of China’s richest men, issued a public, self-effacing apology for content he called “in deviation of socialist core values” and pledged the company would work to ensure party “voices are broadcast to strength.”
“You cannot post anything on Douyin that contravenes the official party line on anything and expect it to remain up for long,” said Matt Schrader, a China analyst for the Washington advocacy group Alliance for Securing Democracy.
“The imprisonment of more than a million Uighurs, the corruption of upper-level party members, the videos of Hong Kong protesters: none of it stays,” he added. “Anything that’s a news source or a news app must be in line with the version of the world they want people to see."
That stance also carries into TikTok’s other major markets. The company’s head of operations in India, Raj Mishra, has said the platform would not prominently feature criticism of the country’s leaders because, as he told Bloomberg earlier this year, the app is a place “where people come to have fun rather than creating any political strife.”
TikTok today in the U.S. is an eye-catching playground of memes, music and other distractions, with thin connections to mainstream politics and no guarantee of future growth. But app experts believe it could grow into a formidable part of Americans’ online information food chain — much in the same way that Facebook, founded as an app for college students, transformed the arenas of news, politics and misinformation.
“It’s a massively untapped platform that organizations can use to change the perceptions of a massive audience,” said Rohan Midha, the managing director of PMYB, a U.K.-based marketing firm that helps coordinate corporate sponsorship deals with TikTok’s growing corps of influencers. “And most of the users are quite young, so you can reach a young demographic who it might be easier to shape their perceptions outright.”
Timothy McLaughlin in Hong Kong, Yuan Wang in Beijing and Craig Timberg in Washington contributed to this report.
#technology#tech news#tech#china news#china#u.s. news#u.s. politics#bejing#hong kong protests#hong kong#hongkong#uknews#uk news#worldpolitics#world news#international news#human rights#humanrights#censored#censorship#democracy
0 notes
Text
Rapid-Fire Reviews: We Cast Our Vote for ABC's The Mayor and Marvel At How Truly Bad Inhumans Is
New Post has been published on http://gossip.network/rapid-fire-reviews-we-cast-our-vote-for-abcs-the-mayor-and-marvel-at-how-truly-bad-inhumans-is/
Rapid-Fire Reviews: We Cast Our Vote for ABC's The Mayor and Marvel At How Truly Bad Inhumans Is
Rev your DVRs, the 2017 fall TV season is here!
Ahhh, don’t you just love the start of a new season, with so many fresh new shows making their debuts, hoping to earn a season pass from viewers in an ever-crowded landscape. And with so many new series on so many new platforms, it can be overwhelming trying to decide which ones to devote your previous time to, which is where we come in.
Our TV Team is offering up their quick and dirty thoughts on all of the new broadcast dramas and comedies debuting in September and October with our rapid-fire reviews. First up? ABC’s new offerings…
The Mayor
Premiere Date: Tuesday, Oct. 3 at 9:30 p.m.
Time-Slot Competition: Bull (CBS), This Is Us (NBC), Brooklyn Nine-Nine (Fox), DC’s Legends of Tomorrow (The CW)
Stars: Brandon Michael Hall, Lea Michele, Bernard David, Marcel Spears and Yvette Nicole Brown
Tierney Bricker: The Mayor earns my vote for the best new comedy of the season. Brandon Michael Hall has charisma for days, and it’s so fun to see Lea Michele play outside of Ryan Murphy‘s sandbox for a change. (But please get her on American Horror Story ASAP, please and thank you!).
Chris Harnick: This is cute and funny and fits right in with ABC’s comedy brand. Definitely poised to be one of the shows to watch this year.
Lauren Piester: If I could hug a TV show, I would hug The Mayor. And I’d hug it so hard that it would be like “This is weird.” It’s nice and timely but optimistic as opposed to depressing, and the cast is delightful. Yvette Nicole Brown might have found her best role yet.
Billy Nilles: Without a doubt, this is the best new comedy of the season. Brandon Michael Hall is poised to be the year’s breakout star as Courtney Rose, the upstart rapper whose mayoral campaign publicity stunt proves more successful than he bargained for. The idea is fresh, the comedy is sweet and charming, and Yvette Nicole Brown, as Courtney’s mom Dina, has never been better. The Mayor absolutely has my vote.
The Good Doctor
Premiere Date: Monday, Sept. 25 at 10 p.m.
Time-Slot Competition: Scorpion (CBS), The Brave (NBC)
Stars: Freddie Highmore, Antonia Thomas, Nicholas Gonzalez, Chuku Modu, Beau Garrett, Hill Harper, Richard Schiff and Tamlyn Tomita
Tierney Bricker: This is not really my jam, but I don’t fault anyone for wanting to put it on their toast, if you know what I mean? You probably don’t. Also, Highmore continues to be one of the most underrated actors on TV.
Chris Harnick: Freddie Highmore is going from killing people to saving people with ABC’s ambitious new drama. FYI: He also said that quote during every interview/appearance at TCA. Some of the other casting for this feels out of place, but if you were a fan of House and Highmore, set your DVR, but be warned: There are still kinks to be worked out for sure.
Lauren Piester: Everything about this show in theory sounds annoying, because the “doctor who’s bad with people but good with medicine” has been done to death (and by the same creator, too). But The Good Doctor is actually sweet and thoughtful and comforting and the pilot might have made me cry just a little bit. Add in the hot doctors sleeping with each other and that’s everything I need from a medical drama.
Billy Nilles: It certainly feels like creator David Shore has done this show before, but Freddie Highmore‘s Dr. Shaun Murphy is certainly much more sympathetic than Dr. House ever was. There’s a lot of heart here, especially coming from Richard Schiff as Shaun’s mentor and protector Dr. Aaron Glassman, but there isn’t much originality.
Marvel’s Inhumans
Premiere Date: Friday, Sept. 29 at 9 p.m.
Time-Slot Competition: Hawaii Five-0 (CBS), Taken (NBC), The Exorcist (Fox), Jane the Virgin (The CW)
Stars: Anson Mount, Serinda Swan, Ken Leung, Eme Ikwuakor, Isabelle Cornish, Ellen Woglom and Iwan Rheon
Tierney Bricker: You know how in movies they will have characters go see a fake movie or play a trailer for a fake movie a la Tropic Thunder? This show feels like that for superhero shows, with Jessica Jones watching for 10 seconds before changing the channel. Good idea, not the best execution, unfortunately.
Chris Harnick: If you are curious about Inhumans, check out Paul Jenkins and Jae Lee‘s excellent Marvel comic series from 1998. That’s my polite way of saying stay as far away from this as possible.
Lauren Piester: I like the giant teleporting dog, I guess. But I also hate the giant teleporting dog?
Billy Nilles: A hero who can’t speak because his voice is powerful enough to destroy planets. A giant teleporting dog. A secret city on the moon in danger of being exposed to Earth. If you want balls-to-the-wall insanity, Inhumans has it in spades. If you want thoughtful writing and production value worthy of the Marvel name, well, you might want to look elsewhere.
ABC
Ten Days in the Valley
Premiere Date: Sunday, Oct. 1 at 10 p.m.
Time-Slot Competition: Madam Secretary (CBS)
Stars: Kyra Sedgwick, Erika Christensen, Abigail Pniowsky, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Francois Battiste, Felix Solis, Josh Randal, Kick Gurry, Malcolm-Jamal Warner and Ella Thomas
Tierney Bricker: I feel like ABC’s been looking for a successor to Revenge (but season one Revenge, not the rest of the seasons of Revenge) and I feel like this soapy and ridiculous-yet-totally-watchable thriller starring Kweeeeen Kyra might just be their best shot.
Chris Harnick: Is this this year’s The Family? Seems like it. There’s a solid leading actress (Kyra Sedgwick) saddled with a mystery in a very meh show. Maybe Sedgwick should’ve chatted with Joan Allen.
Lauren Piester: I’m confused…yet intrigued. There is a LOT going on in this show, but if you like mysteries and the entertainment industry, there is fun to be had.
Billy Nilles: This is a very busy premiere, introducing about seven subplots in one hour, and it can feel like a lot at times. But Kyra Sedgwick’s turn as harried TV producer Jane Sadler successfully sheds the image seven seasons of The Closer cultivated and the whodunnit surrounding the disappearance of her young daughter is enough to keep me coming back for me. Here’s hoping the creators keep their word and actually end this limited series after the titular ten days.
Kevin (Probably) Saves the World
Premiere Date: Tuesday, Oct. 3 at 10 p.m.
Time-Slot Competition: NCIS: New Orleans (CBS), Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders (NBC)
Stars: Jason Ritter, Kimberly Hebert Gregory, JoAnna Garcia Swisher, J.August Richards, India de Beaufort, Chloe Easti and Dustin Ybarra
Tierney Bricker: Kevin might save the world, but Jason Ritter’s charm-for-days can’t save this show for me. Womp-womp. Cute yet forgettable, like a straight-to-On Demand movie.
Chris Harnick: ABC is smart to want to be in the Jason Ritter business, he’s one of the most charming actors on TV and certainly the best part of this weird pilot. It’s OK, not great, and not something I will be watching. If you like Jason Ritter, you’ll be into this, for a bit at least.
Lauren Piester: There’s nothing truly objectionable going on here and it could be a sweet show, but something in the pilot felt off, like no one’s sure what the tone is supposed to be. But this is at least better than that other ill-fated guardian angel show with Jane Lynch.
Billy Nilles: This spiritual series, which tasks title character Kevin with having to find 35 worthy souls to help save the world (at least I think that’s what the quest is), will live or die based on Jason Ritter‘s winning charm. He bounces off his supporting cast with ease, generating instant chemistry, but the “guardian angel making him look crazy” schtick could get old fast. Hopefully the show can find a way to avoid that because there could be something really special here if done right.
Which of ABC’s new fall shows are you looking forward to? Tweet @EOnlineTV with your pick!
Source link
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
tvacaro-blog
Tony's Blog
triplet22
Untitled
cricketxtras
Cricket Xtras
kaati-lol
HATSUNE MIKU MY BELOVED
miss-misimo
ITS MISS MISIMO!!