Top Five (2014) ***½/5: Good film by Chris rock but there are a lot of gaps and too much product placement.

Top Five is a good film although I resisted it on some levels. I was pleasantly surprised because most films starring Chris Rock are normally funny in parts but hardly penetrative; always superficial and bordering on ‘is this worth it?’ vibe. Most of his films were like the Hammy franchise and so it’s good that he attempts to make a film that has genuine emotion although the comedy is not far behind.  The structure of the film actually reminded me of Before Sunset (2004) as it relies on two people opening up about the personal details in their lives and how that brings them closer together. The difference here is that Top Five has bit more detail in terms of a supporting cast and various scenarios that add some dimension to the story visually. The core of the film, however, still focuses on the development of a romance occurring in a single day.

This film stars Chris Rock as Hammy;  sorry,  I meant as Andre Brown , a  successful comedian and film star that has lost his spark and wishes to be taken more seriously. He meets Chelsea Brown (Rosario Dawson) who helps him reignite his spark and find out what he’s been missing amidst all the glitter and the fame.

Positives

For me I was very surprised that this film was genuine and had some heart to go along with the comedy. This provided balance and contrasted significantly with previous films starring Chris Rock that were all comedy and satire with no backbone. I can’t even remember his previous films as I write but I am sure that I will remember this one.  So kudos to Chris Rock for having us take him seriously. There are some good moments when you see rock trying to let others know that it’s not all a joke.

The blend between comedy and genuine emotion is revealed well with the back and forth between Rock and Dawson’s characters. It is clear that Andre Brown/Hammy gives us a more comedic outlook or the speakerboxx but Chelsea gives us the love below.  It is through Chelsea that the genuine feelings in the film come through particularly with her real vibe that challenges Brown. Andre Brown is almost looking to be rescued as he mopes around  wishing to be taken more seriously and giving us some comedy relief for good measure. His shallow life is made to look  more shallow and superficial  with his reality tv  star wife, Berkani (Gabrielle Union) who does everything for the camera.  Chelsea, however, is quite genuine and clearly has a need to prove herself and to find some sense of belonging in a world of disappointment. You feel more for her than for Brown and maybe that was the point of the Cinderella references. Brown must be the prince charming that will rescue her from her mundane and unflattering existence.  The good thing about the Cinderella reference is the surprise near the end. It all tied into Chelsea’s attempts to re imagine the classic fairy tale. It’s well done. You never quite realize how two people opening up to each other in the way Chelsea and Brown do until the time for a separation comes. When that moment of separation does come it does resonate.

There are some good comedic moments although only a few of the jokes really resonate with me. Those that did resonate had me chuckling and one joke, not from Chris Rock, about slave movies had me laughing out loud. There is a strong supporting cast that adds some range to the comedic effect although some of the individuals like Adam Sandler who are well know say a lot of platitudinous things and really just show up and contribute to the brown’s shallow existence. You expect more from them but they are flat. It’s not clear why they are even in the movie.  I suppose it’s a means to produce the Hollywood effect.  I was not wowed by their presence.  Some of the scenarios were funny particularly the one featuring Cedric the entertainer.

I also like some of the scenes where Brown goes on some ghetto odyssey to reconnect with his roots. I like some of the secrets that get revealed  throughout the film which make you realize that it’s lonely at the top with so many people out to get you. The trappings of stardom I suppose.

Kudos for trying to bring some attention to the Haitian revolution.

Negatives

The primary negative for me was product placement. When I saw that Jay Z and Kanye West were the producers it all made sense for me when they featured in everyone’s top 5 Mcs of all time. Typically room is only made for east coast rappers in the top 5 and tupac is made fun of. As a tupac fan  I was not impressed. Was that a requirement of the producers? I was not impressed and it threw me off the film completely. I am not a fan of jay z and I like some of Kanye’s music but that’s it so maybe that’s why I was more conscious of their requirements. It’s an east coast vibe in this film and the west is portrayed as some Disney land. In the east everything seems so real. As Alicia Keys said in the song ‘Empire State of Mind’ the streets of New York are the concrete jungle where dreams are made of as your head is dazzled by the lights. Jay Z did say in that song 'Empire State of Mind' that it was the home of hip hop so that must give it a monopoly on the top 5.  Couldn’t Rock have his producers make an appearance in the film?No! Jay Z must maintain his  imaginary,   American gangster image with 99 problems. I was not impressed by the product placement because it comes across as a means to promote some bias in terms of ‘who’s your top 5?’ ‘ Only east coast rappers.’ Who are they trying to convince with that? I was not impressed by the presence of stars like Sandler and Whoopi Goldberg. It seemed like some actor grabbing moment. An opportunity to get these people to play themselves and make some platitudinous remarks because it seems they were the ones willing to work for peanuts. It never added anything to the film. 

Some elements of the film are quite predictable and the inevitable romance develops. The film only remains good because it cannot make hard decisions. It retreats into conventional territory even with the surprises. The surprises only confirm its conventional approach to the narrative. There could have been moments that really tested the love between the two main characters but it remains conventional.  In the end no real hard decisions are taken particularly when Brown rediscovers his form.

Some of the comedy was just excessive and was more filler than having anything to say particularly the material related to Chelsea’s boyfriend and other scenarios. It’s just overcooked. Instead of delivering on the story Brown tries to go back into camp of his previous films and it registers hollow. Yes people will laugh out loud but just for the moment. People won’t be talking about those jokes years, or even weeks, from now. I was  expecting more from those scenarios as an extension of the story. There is much more that could have been revealed about Brown as a character but instead what is revealed in the scenarios is fodder for comedy not real story development. He could have had more scenarios if he kept the lengthy ones much shorter.   This is why apart from the relationship between Brown and Chelsea a lot of the movie remains empty at the core despite the social commentary or satire. Maybe for the next film he can fill out more of these gaps.

I suspect the top five element is supposed to be some form of rediscovery but it plays like Love and Basketball to me. Not much being introduced with the concept from that point of view. Chris Rock could have done better with that instead of just using the top five as product placement of the producers. The concept could have connected more. Why do people like to recite their top five? And Why is it always in regard to the top 5 rappers? Not everyone will get it. There are other questions I could ask but so what.

It’s clear that Chris Rock is trying to break through but it has not happened for this film. It definitely seems autobiographical and there are other stories that need to be told with the same vibe. There are some punctured areas that released something.  This is why I am looking forward to the follow up because this film seems to be doing fairly well at the box office.  Next we might be talking about Chris rock and spike lee in the same sentence but with a more comedic vibe.

The Petty Bourgeois Economy: A introductory discussion

The Petty bourgeois economy is one dominated by the petty bourgeois class. In a particular national sphere the ruling petty bourgeois class do assume the characteristics of the dominant bourgeois seen in the advanced industrial nations but this façade is shattered when their clout, influence or wealth becomes diminished as they encounter  the advanced bourgeoisie that exist outside of their shores. In that moment, at that point of contact, they retain their petty bourgeois status even though they do control the means of production in their own respective national territories. This domination by the petty bourgeois class in their territories provides the basis for the functioning of a petty bourgeois economy and reveals many limitations and weaknesses that forever leave those economies in a vegetative state. In the advanced bourgeois economies the petty bourgeois class keep the system functioning however the dictates do not come from them. They become caretakers for the dominant bourgeoisie in those economies but never the leaders. If they did become the actual leaders then the economy of the dominant bourgeoisie class would be ruined by fatalistic ideology and rampant idealism.   In this post I give  brief outlines of the characteristics of a petty bourgeois economy and the closed, small minded attributes of its population.  The petty bourgeois economies fall within the context of the national order as a means to enforce the will of the dominant bourgeoisie that exist in the advanced industrial  states. Their role is therefore twofold: on the one hand the dominant petty bourgeois class in a petty bourgeois economy must assume the characteristics of a national bourgeoisie in their own country  in order to promote the values of capitalism and secondly they must enact the will of the dominant bourgeoisie that exist in the advanced industrial nations for it is the dominant industrial class that provide the security for the tenure of the ruling petty bourgeois  class. A theoretical discussion of petty bourgeois economies are important in understanding how far capital has advanced from the 19^th century. It also speaks to the increasing division of labour in the world economy and the extent that capitalism can still expand by breaking many of the fetters that keep some petty bourgeois economies in a vegetative state. The existence of petty bourgeois economies proves that capitalism still has more room for expansion. These petty bourgeois economies are integrated into the world economy on the basis of capitalist principles however the mode of production is not reflective of capitalism in a developed state but a developing one.

  I have already discussed the petty/petite bourgeois or middle class groups  and so I will not dwell on a discussion here only to say that the first major characteristic of a petty bourgeois economy is the existence of such a ruling class. The petty bourgeois class is characterized by a middling approach to most matters. It is incapable of aggressive expansion because it benefits from the fragmented means of production under its sway but it also benefits from the exploitation of wage labour that is the prime, characteristic feature of capital. This middling approach of the petty bourgeois class permeates the rest of the society and so aggressive expansion is frowned upon and every process associated with jump starting a progressive agenda is tedious or results in a lot of time being wasted. On the other hand it cannot fully exploit wage labour because of the low productivity that characterizes the economy. Low labour productivity is a feature of the tedious, drawn out processes initiated by the petty bourgeois class. The ruling petty bourgeois class, by its very approach, sets the tone for low labour productivity. Labour productivity only improves when the dominant bourgeoisie, from overseas, are granted a foothold in the economy. The petty bourgeois class gladly welcomes their masters into the fold only when there is a crisis although with the improvement in labour productivity the ruling petty bourgeois class will eventually lose its claim to domination within the petty bourgeois economy. The dominant bourgeois class will erode much of their influence. The very basis for its domination is a resistance to aggressive expansion or change within the economy and this reflects a middling approach to how the economy should function. Aggressive expansion always involves a rapid increase in labour productivity, investments and a consolidation in the means of production on a much larger scale; these are things the ruling petty bourgeois class cannot guarantee.  This view point associated with slow growth actually permeates the entire society and the people eventually feel that they only have to do just enough to survive. This is because the petty bourgeois class is almost incapable of leading in a style that requires aggressive expansion of capital investments in the market which will increase labour productivity. This is a role reserved primarily for the dominant bourgeois class in the advanced nations. I must repeat that the petty bourgeois class are considered the leaders that must set the pace for the petty bourgeois economy to function whereas in the advanced industrial nations they act only as caretakers for the dominant bourgeoisie in those territories. This reveals that they are incapable or unwilling to lead the economy into an advanced industrial state because they would lose their foothold or reveal their weaknesses.  In those petty bourgeois economies that attempt to become a dominant capitalist nation the state does play an active role in consolidating the means of production by taking over certain industries, tariff hikes and the training of skilled individuals for the international market. This training of skilled workers in line with advanced industrial capitalism will be a significant encouragement for the giant corporate firms to invest in the petty bourgeois economy and set it on the path to rapid industrialization. This is one of the reasons for Singapore’s rapid transition from a petty bourgeois economy to an advanced industrial state. The people themselves had to demonstrate the capabilities necessary to manage advanced industrial and financial processes. With this consolidation the state can promote a more effective industrialization program with the aid of both local and foreign capital. 

Another characteristic of the petty bourgeois economy is the fragmented means of production.  The fragmented means of production become the basis  for the entire economy because there is no corresponding revolution that would be characterized by a progression to  an advanced industrial nation.  There are pockets in the economy where the consolidation of the means of production takes place but not sufficient to dominate the economy. Only the great lever of foreign capital from the advanced industrial nations can fully effect this revolution by consolidating the means of production, however, because local capital is incapable of effecting such a change in the petty bourgeois economy which became so reliant on the means of production being fragmented. The fragmented means of production is characterized by several people working for just enough to get by or enough to satisfy their independent livelihood because the means of production are distributed among these many individuals. Every man/woman has a small plot of land or particular instruments to put his or her labour into motion. They use this as a means to provide for their subsistence as well as to, maybe,  generate a surplus in the form of profit. In many cases they pay their own wages and provide their own surplus value/unpaid labour time/profit. They are known as the independent producers and they flourish in the petty bourgeois economy. Whereas in the advanced industrial nations some of these independent producers eventually grow to become members of the dominant bourgeois class, by accumulating a significant amount of capital through the exploitation of a wage labour force, in the petty bourgeois economy the independent producer becomes a mainstay of the economy and does not expand significantly. The expansion of the independent producer is quite limited or remains within certain limits because so many of them exist. The ruling petty bourgeois class is reluctant to promote such expansion because it will lead to the destruction of its class and its noble pedigree. In Britain, home to the first industrial revolution,  the state played a great role in catering to the interests  of the dominant bourgeois class by destroying, in brutal fashion, the independent producing group represented by the peasantry and by converting them into a working class that relied primarily on selling their labour power to the ruling bourgeois class. This would never occur in a petty bourgeois state that relies on this independent producing group as a mainstay for the economy. The petty bourgeois state can only be forced to do this unless the dominant bourgeoisie class can force their hand by increasing their indebtedness and liability to the lords of capital or by a determined effort to encourage the rapid accumulation of capital through expropriation, expansion and the exploitation of a significant wage labour force.

 This independent producing group, therefore, acts as a stabilizing and stagnating element in society. It stabilizes the economy for decades because there is no risk of the constant flux associated with advanced capitalism.  The cultural values of this independent producing group are passed down for generations and eventually most people are brought up believing that doing just enough to survive is enough.  Doing enough to get by with your own labour even if that means you only live in a board or zinc house. It should be enough. In Jamaica the rastafari movement is typical of such a value system. In other countries that preach about such a mystical vibe it is also a recurring theme because it leads to a promotion of a lifestyle where individuals are one with nature. You do not disturb the balance of nature but you do enough, in terms of applying your labour power,  to satisfy your own needs.  Whereas the dominant bourgeois  class tries to subdue nature for the benefit of raw material extraction thereby dispelling a lot of fantasies associated with nature worship the  members of the petty bourgeois economy do not wish to disturb the balance that comes with working for just enough to get by.  This can become a stagnating element because of  the low labour productivity that comes with such a belief system. This belief system eventually becomes a means to keep the people in a state of bondage whereby change can only come from above or from the gods on high. The people themselves become incapable or unwilling to disturb this balance. The growth of a criminal class that adopts primarily material values also presents the people with a lot of headaches because the fragmented means of production means that the lack of registration and accountability becomes an issue. It becomes difficult to track people and incorporate them into the state and this is a gateway for exploitation by the criminal class that use intimidation and fear, so called illegal activities as a means to accumulate capital by plundering the independent producers of their product. In certain spheres the criminals adopt the values associated with the dominant bourgeois class when it was just being formed in Western Europe from the 13^th to 16^th centuries. Obviously it has cleaned up its act by now.  The criminal class eventually disturbs this balance in a petty bourgeois economy because the means of production are so fragmented and are difficult to incorporate into a consolidated whole and so people get lost or cannot be accounted for unless something dramatic happens. The petty bourgeois state keeps some semblance of order through a nationalist agenda but it is incapable of consolidating the means of production which is the primary way, from a material perspective, to unify the country i.e. the means of production will be socialized more effectively. Even in the advanced industrial nations petty commodity production associated with a petty bourgeois economy thrives until the dominant bourgeois class eventually takes over those areas. Prior to their takeover those areas are normally promoted in the media as crime infested or impoverished areas and the value of property actually goes down and this makes it very easy for the dominant bourgeois class to expand into these territories.

Another characteristic of the petty bourgeois economy that can be counted as both progressive and regressive is the deification of labour. This deification promotes labour as the epitome of excellence. You are encouraged to work hard for what you want and to apply yourself as a worker. It provides some aura of invincibility when you interact in the social scene because you’re revered for your hard work ethic. Your labour alone can guarantee a significant surplus when compared with other independent producers. In some cases the hard working independent producer will apply himself and become a small capitalist within the confines of the petty bourgeois economy.  The primary downside to this deification of labour is that it can lead to exploitation from the dominant bourgeois class or by the criminal element.  It also provides the basis for an erosion of the independent producing group because with the rise of very hardworking independent producers there will be a significant accumulation of capital that can drive your competitors out of the market and so begin the process of rapid capital accumulation. In a lot of cases, however, the hardworking independent producer does enough for his own well being despite all the hard work. The surplus he generates beyond his daily needs are seen as a blessing instead of a means to aggressively expand and become a lord of capital. In the end when this hardworking independent producer has done enough his limit is shown as a worker and the standards he employed with his labour may be glorified by the populace in a petty bourgeois state but in the international arena he still cannot compete with output per worker in the advanced industrial nations. For instance a successful independent producer in a petty bourgeois state like Jamaica rises above the average per capita income of US$5000 per annum to about US$50, 000 per annum. In the end however that hard work will meet the standard of a normal wage earner in an advanced industrial state. Even if the independent producer meets the requirement of a small capitalist by employing labour that 50, 000 is seen as good business up to a certain limit. In other cases the earning of a successful independent producer can be outstripped by the wages made to skilled workers in the advanced industrial states. In a petty bourgeois state it is not the norm and so the success actually reflects the low productivity levels of labour, the inadequate investment climate and the fragmented means of production which inhibits considerable expansion. Some petty bourgeois states produce one or two individuals whose skills dazzle the world but their success and earnings are considered the norm  for a petty bourgeois in the advanced industrial states. It still reflects a petty bourgeois mindset where your input is sufficient; your skill set that guarantees you success reveals your limits but it should be enough.

This is why the celebrity status is an important vehicle in the petty bourgeois economy or the lifestyle of many of its citizens. People use the ethic of hard work in a particular field to become a success within a certain limit. Eventually the field in which they are a success becomes the basis for fame and fortune that are tied into the image or activity in their field. Even if they try to extend into other fields or to become a dominant capitalist it will be difficult because it will not compare with the earnings associated with their success in the particular field that made them famous and rich within petty bourgeois limits. It reveals the petty bourgeois as a skilled worker and nothing more and although they tap into the fantasy of those that aspire to be successful through their labour it does not guarantee the progression of the petty bourgeois economy into an advanced industrial state.  In an advanced industrial state the petty bourgeois celebrity class might be revered on a social level but the economy does not rely exclusively on their prowess to do well or to be seen as a dominant force in the international arena. Many petty bourgeois states tend to exaggerate the success of their petty bourgeois success stories on the international scene whereas in the advanced industrial nations they are a dime a dozen.

The deification of labour in the petty bourgeois economy also reflects a backward approach to the adoption of advanced technology. People are keen to rely on outdated machinery or other materials to get work done because the input of human labour is valued above all else. Even some members of the national bourgeoisie use outdated machinery and technology as the means of production and not just the peasant or artisan classes. It’s not just the government that’s slow to change. The use of outdated technology is one reason for the low levels of growth and the inadequate response of labour. When new technology comes on stream in the advanced industrial economies the industries in the petty bourgeois economy normally receive them much later  and only the truly elite companies can acquire this technology as it becomes available. By the time they fully implement these new technologies weary travelers  never fail to remind them of their outdated qualities. In the petty bourgeois economy a significant amount of importance is attached to these wonderful outdated creations but at the core remains the mantra that human labour is much more noble. This mantra permeates the many members of the peasantry that stubbornly resist the introduction of new technologies. 

This notion related to the noble human qualities of labour also promotes a patriarchal mode of production whereby the strength associated with male labour is revered particularly as males are stronger than females on average. The female normally assumes a more supporting role to ensure the man is well taken care of and that his strength is preserved so that he can endure as he ventures out to utilize his labour in order to provide for the home. This patriarchal mode of production is eventually shattered when the petty bourgeois economy undergoes a fundamental industrial revolution in most spheres. The mode of production associated with capitalism does take place in pockets but it does not dominate the society because most of the means of production remain fragmented. In those pockets women clearly go out and work and are breadwinners but this occurs primarily in the towns. Petty bourgeois economies are primarily agricultural and so the patriarchal mode of production is more significant in those areas that account for the way of life of the majority.

The petty bourgeois economy also relies heavily on the developments in the advanced industrial economies. This can be seen in countries like Jamaica that are breathing a sigh of relief for the drop in oil prices. The petty bourgeois economies have little or no control over external events and are unable to influence them in a significant way. They are normally dependent on the activities of the real movers and shakers in the global economy. In some cases the populace becomes horrified by the dependence on external foreign capital investments because of the fear that the government will sell out when in fact the economy does not generate sufficient capital to handle major or mega capital projects on a large scale. There are some fairly considerable capital projects that are undertaken by local capital but it is completely dwarfed by the capital of the dominant bourgeoisie in the advanced industrial nations. This is because the petty bourgeois market cannot facilitate significant accumulation unless the state makes significant concessions to the local capitalists and encourages them to produce. 

Petty bourgeois economies are primarily markets for the advanced industrial capitalist economies. The low level of productivity and inadequate investment climate make them ill equipped to compete with the capitalists in the advanced economies. The populace do earn incomes and the economy does function but there is a lot of wasted potential in terms of realizing the full potential of the populace.  The income earned in the petty bourgeois economies are primarily through exports to international markets, by monopolies in the local economy and state intervention. It is clear how important the export market is for these economies because of their reliance on foreign reserves in order to purchase imports from overseas. Economies in the Caribbean rely heavily on tourism and remittances for these inflows of foreign currency. US dollars, the British pound, the euro, the Canadian currency are all welcome and the scammers will tell you that. The local economy cannot satisfy local demand in a globalized market unless petty bourgeois economies can start designing and making their own cars, phones, computers, raw materials or semi finished products, high tech machinery etc and other advanced industrially produced products. Most petty bourgeois economies are incapable of operating at such a high level and so importing is inevitable particularly if they wish to imitate or be like the advanced industrial economies. However even if they wish to be advanced they must demonstrate that they are capable of operating at an advanced level. If not then their ideas about being developed remain a fantasy. Most petty bourgeois economies become integrated into the world economy primarily as consumers and not major producers apart from raw material production or through foreign investment which is the only the basis to push on and become an advanced industrial nation by developing per capita incomes in the local economy.

Most petty bourgeois economies are agricultural in make up. This is why the dependence on raw material production is essential for growth in these economies. A lot of the oil producing countries are still petty bourgeois economies because they are so dependent on the export of such a valuable raw material. In the era of African slavery from the 16^th to the 19^th century Caribbean sugar once held the place that oil holds today.  It remained a significant source of earning yet these economies never became fully developed and their local markets remained perennially weak. This had a lot to do with Imperial policy however but even with the yoke of the imperial authorities gone these economies are still dependent on raw material production. They have been unable to create the necessary links to connect the agricultural surplus with the development of local industry sufficiently. This is due to the dependence on foreign capital, low labour productivity and the fragmented means of production which are all a characteristic of petty bourgeois economies. Economies such as Australia and New Zealand became developed although they were primarily agricultural countries. This was due, according to W. Arthur Lewis to the high labour productivity where one individual in Australia would produce and earn much more per acre than an individual in the British West Indies at the time although the two were agricultural in their makeup. 

Most petty bourgeois economies became integrated into the world economy through the colonial expedition of the Imperial powers. After the withdrawal of Imperialist powers and the semi autonomy granted to these newly founded states most of them still persisted with being dependent on the more advanced industrial nations. Other petty bourgeois economies were integrated, historically, as a source of raw materials. A lot of the wealthy oil producing nations today like Dubai, Saudi Arabia etc were economic back waters before the discovery of oil.

Petty bourgeois economies are also characterized by revolutions that lead to a higher stage of capitalism. The transformation of Singapore is quite clear in the history books as it went from a primarily subsistence based economy under British imperial rule to one of the wealthiest countries in the world according to per capita income. The other petty bourgeois economies remain in a vegetative state until certain factors push a bourgeois revolution that consolidates the means of production and improves labour productivity.

This concludes my discussion. It is one that requires further elaboration but this discussion provides the basis for further debate.

Nightcrawler (2014) ****/5: This film could have been more definitive in exploring the nightlife of L.A but instead it commoditizes the media product that comes with nightcrawling and does not make it relatable apart from the ruthless business practices adopted by those that seek to accumulate capital at the expense of others.

Nightcrawler is a good film and one that media junkies will like but it never blew me away.  It provides some insight into the nightcrawler profession where the news is merely a commodity regardless of the dire human subject at its core. These nightcrawlers come equipped with their cameras to the scene where some destructive action has taken place. This makes it newsworthy and so the first one to the scene will be able to capture the immediate aftermath and so be in a better position to sell the footage to a broadcasting news company. Like I said it’s interesting but too often it appeared to be a just a description of what is required to succeed. What makes this film stand out from its merely descriptive mould is the character Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal ) who, due to his quirks,  raises a lot of moral quandaries and not necessarily legal ones.

Lou Bloom, an alienated individual,  is drawn to this profession and in his rise to success he reveals his misanthropic tendencies that make him into another capitalist savage.  His complete disregard for human beings coincides with his rise to prominence in the nightcrawler field. In the end it’s a business like any other and the route to success is the same although the product might involve a different approach to accumulating capital. It still requires labour (variable capital), an investment in capital equipment and raw materials (constant capital) and a way to reach the market in a timely manner so that you can out maneuver your competitors meaning turn over time is crucial.

Positives

There are several commendable things about this film and they all surround the business of nightcrawling. This profession however does not stand out beyond the first minutes when it was presented to me. Through the character of Lou the film demonstrated how ruthless you have to be to be successful especially when your competitors have a head start. Watching Lou’s climb to the top was an example of how success often comes at a price and that to be successful on the basis of private property sometimes one has to do questionable things to preserve your well being.  Lou’s actions might seem questionable from a moral standpoint but when most of us are faced with the scenario where we have to preserve our own self interest that comes with our accumulated store of privately owned property few of us can walk away and leave. We will defend it because it is our bread and butter or a significant part of our lives.  Let me note that private property can e what you represent. For example the majority  working class  and the professional groups, that comprise the petty bourgeois/middle class ranks of society,  rely on selling their labour, no matter how complex, to those that own the means of production, whether  it be the private capitalist class or the government  machinery.  All they have is what their labour represents or their labour power that  valorizes capital. The value of the labour power sold  to capital depends on how much surplus value/unpaid labour time can be extracted from these workers with the aid of various capital investments. This concept associated with the defense of private property in the film is represented well by Nina (Rene Russo) whose reputation depends on how she can improve rating for the broadcast news station. This is how she develops a close relationship with Lou who reminds her of their mutual dependence on each other in order to attain success. This would also explain why she tolerates Lou’s excesses because she sees in him, or he makes her see, a lot of herself, her ruthless drive for success.

I liked the character of Rick (Riz Ahmed)  who is more or less, a representative of the brutalized working classes that exist on the fringes of society and are mercilessly exploited. It is clear from the beginning when he is begins to develop a working relationship with Lou that he will be ruthlessly exploited and this becomes very evident towards the end. I was not very shocked because I understand that for the capitalist to succeed the worker must be sacrificed because the capitalist must make a profit and he can’t do that when the worker is demanding an ever greater share of the proceeds. The film ably demonstrates how the two, capital and labour,  are mutually dependent on each other and how the two become the source of the system’s contradictions. The relationship between Rick (Labour) and Lou (Capital) demonstrate these contradictions well. Although Lou does do a lot of the work which would characterize him as a worker he also owns the equipment and it is clear that his goal is to reach the top where others work on his behalf

Joe (Bill Paxton) represents Lou’s competition and he is a great element in the story because competition drives the baseness in market driven capitalism. Competition also pushes boundaries in a particular field of capital because each opponent is trying to outdo the other to be successful. The competition between Lou and Joe has consequences.

The film does present some interesting moral quandaries particularly the question how far do we go in order to be successful in a particular field? Do we acknowledge that there are some lines we do not cross? If we do cross them then what does it all mean? I can’t spoil everything but suffice to say the film does not address these issues sufficiently because some of the actions in the film will be a moral issue for the conservative element but not necessarily for those that understand what is sometimes required for success. Lou’s disdain for humanity which is reminiscent of characters such as Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver (See my review) is the perfect tool to examine this moral quandary. In order for him to be successful  he has to push boundaries which might involve him not connecting much with certain aspects of his humanity, or compassion for others. It allows him to be a capitalist savage. You have an issue that is hampering your business deal with it within the confines of the law but don’t worry too much about the moral issue or who you might hurt along the way. This is the approach taken by Lou. Although we first see him as a very good thief at the beginning it is clear from the start that he wants to go legit.  He uses the nightcrawler business as a way to do this. In the end he is very successful at what he does although he did questionable things along the way.

In the end this film, despite the nightcrawling element,  discusses how one can become a successful capitalist that owns some portion of the means of production and labour power to do your bidding. The news footage captured by the nightcrawlers is another commodity and when something becomes commoditized it loses touch with the humanist elements that formed the basis of its origins. Once something becomes commoditized it becomes a vehicle for the accumulation of capital. The questionable actions of Lou centre on the principle that he is accumulating footage as a commodity that can be sold which can make him more money and give him a insider track into the legit world.  This is why he shows disregard for those enduring plight because regardless of how dramatic the footage is all Lou sees is a commodity that can be sold at the right price.

Negatives

The primary negative of this film is that the nightcrawling aspect is commoditized instead of humanized. It is great that there are some interesting things captured for the news, particularly a spectacular murder, but it never really goes to core of the fact that the city comes alive at night. Lou’s alienated approach to humanity makes it appear even more commoditized as he disregards his humanity and that’s fine but there is no other perspective that offers much insight into the  nightlife being covered and what causes it to come alive. At least Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver made some commentary on the underbelly of night life when he said the ‘Animals come out at night’.  He even interacts directly with the night life through Iris. You got a sense of the nightlife and how it can be a very depressing environment for the industrial reserve army or those cast out on the fringes of bourgeois society.  There is nothing like this in Nightcrawler and we are only treated with a detached approach and a few moral quandaries but never a full engagement with the night life.  Apart from Lou’s desperation to stand out and defeat his competitors, or those he considers as threats, there is not much edge to the story. When the directors commoditize the news footage, through Lou, there is actually a detachment not an engagement with the night life in L.A. This is why I liked the character Rick but he is not developed beyond his service to Lou. He is ruthlessly exploited but it is not tragic from the perspective of the night life featured in nightcrawler but ruthless from the perspective of how the worker is sacrificed so that Lou can accumulate capital.

What I mean is that by commoditizing the news footage makes it into another commodity for capital.  The news footage in this film is a commodity with a use value that must be exchanged in the market so that capital can be valorized. In capital it does not normally matter what commodity is sold as long as it has some social value which will make it exchangeable in the market. You also get a sense that lou enters this field not just because nightcrawling offers great insights into night life but that it allows you to accumulate capital due to the news footage commodity. This is why the detachment made me less interested in nightcrawlng but the business side of it. We see that clearly when Lou loves to have a go at Nina to give make him more prominent in the news business in exchange for……  So by the end lou appears to be just another capitalist with the nightcrawling element giving him that outlet to accumulate capital. If you look at it from the perspective of how capital is accumulated then Lou’s detachment and lack of concern is quite normal because in his mind all the footage is commoditized and a way to make money. All of the questionable moral things that he does are just a way to get an edge in the market. It has nothing to do with what the nightcrawling element that can teach us about nightlife in L.A.  We have seen characters like this, such as Daniel Plainview in There Will be Blood. He was just as ruthless when he wanted to accumulate capital but at least that film brought forward a certain element of the social life that Plainview encountered. It was brought forward in such a way that he could not disregard it and brought him into conflict with the dynamics of the religious culture in the country side. In Nightcrawler Lou only has to contend with a police officer that tries to unnerve him into revealing his underhanded methods. this could have been the real conflict but instead it resolves into a moral quandary. If it clashed with the legal framework of society then it would be something quite interesting and would have added some dimension to the profession of nightcrawling. Is this type of business even regulated? Questions like that never really emerged in the presentation.

In the end Nightcrawler could have been more definitive in exploring  the nightlife of L.A but instead it commoditizes the media product that comes with nightcrawling and does not make it relatable apart from the ruthless business practices adopted by those that seek to accumulate capital at the expense of others.

Interstellar (2014) ****/5: Captures the imagination of those that star gaze and wonder about their place in the universe but is overcooked in parts and underwhelming in others.

In Interstellar we finally have a film that takes as its premise our place in the universe and the inevitable fact  that we won’t survive forever on earth in this solar system. Even if the film itself is overcooked or lopsided, in parts, the topic of interstellar travel will become increasingly important in the next 20, 000 years or so if we’re still around. The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long and humans have burnt very brightly in our short stay on earth.  The solar system itself will eventually die when the vast energy of the sun is extinguished.  A lot of documentaries that discuss the vastness of the universe make it clear that human kind must search for a new home in the cosmos. The distance to be covered is vast, however,  hence why we must first look for signs of life in our own solar system such as on the planet Mars or on the Saturn moon, Titan. It will be difficult for us to consider travel beyond this solar system for now because our Milky Way Galaxy is so huge there is not much of a chance in our human form unless you can learn to cover great distances in quick time. In  Interstellar there is a wormhole located close to Saturn that opens the door for the exploration of other galaxies and planets. Wormholes have been used in sci-fi films before as a means to allow our great space heroes to travel great distances however Christopher Nolan &co. have applied a rigorous scientific basis for it.

Interstellar is a film about a group of explorers led by Cooper (Matthew MCconaughey) and Dr. Brand (Anne Hathaway) that take a trip to another galaxy, through a mysterious wormhole near Saturn,  in search of other planets that could support life so that they can rescue the humans  on a earth whose environment is growing increasingly hostile to life on earth. The trip takes place at a time when space exploration in the near future is considered a waste of time and the production of food more important since the planet strangely ran out. It is a dust bowl sort of future with advanced technology flourishing underground in a  Nasa base.  At the heart of the film is the relationship between Cooper and his daughter, Murph (Jessica Chastain,  with Mckenzie Foy playing the younger version) which addresses the issue of the power and endurance of  the love humans have for each other; a love that can cover all sort of space –time distances.

If Nolan was a bit more daring with the human story he would have made a towering piece of work from an emotional point of view. It still captures, magnificently, the scientific basis for space exploration apart from the mystic elements related to some 5^th dimension. The black hole was the high point of the film in terms of spectacle.

Positives

The primary positives were the visual and scientific bases for space exploration. The scene featuring the ship moving along the surface of a black hole (which is an accurate depiction of what scientists expect black holes to look like) is something to behold.  The look of the two planets explored look more artistic than realistic but are certainly eye candy particularly the planet covered mostly in ice. The tidal wave sequence was  interesting as well but it seemed too convenient as if Nolan intended those huge waves for an Imax presentation. Not everyone, like myself, will watch the film in IMAX and so the awe  of seeing  such a massive tidal wave in all its grandeur was never there for me. I know deep down that Nolan made that sequence explicitly for IMAX and so it’s a bit too manipulative.  The question I have though is:  How can there be a planet that is composed primarily of water or ice? Is there a scientific basis for this or was it just an artistic creation? This is what I could never come to terms with although the scenery was great to look at.

This film does well to capture the imagination that comes when we look up at the stars and that is commendable.

The explanation for what a wormhole is expected to look like was also well done. I liked how it represents this distortion in the space time continuum as it manipulates the environment around it. I was not so impressed by the actual journey through the wormhole because it seemed like a typical sci-fi episode to me although it is supposed to be scientifically based..

I also liked the human element related to love and conflict. This is seen primarily through the relationship between Cooper and Murph but there is a bit of surprise involving Dr. Brand and her own tale of love that truly challenges the scientific basis and has certain consequences for the mission when the characters decide to follow the scientific lead as opposed to the emotional one. This leads to all sorts of surprises particularly on the ice planet where the team find the lone survivor of a previous mission, Dr. Mann (Matt Damon). These were some of the best moments when it concerned the conflict scenarios in the film. It also demonstrates how easily misled the team was from a scientific basis.  The relationship between Murph and Cooper was a good one but it could have been more effective if Nolan took certain risks.  The relationship actually hinders the film in some way. The mystery surrounding Professor Brand (Michael Caine) is also interesting. It is made more interesting because he likes to repeat a particular quote by Dylan Thomas. Sometimes it's funny.

The presentation of the future earth was interesting but limited in my opinion. It’s interesting to see that technology takes a back seat to large scale farming which is not normally the case. NASA, as we know it, is home to some of the most advanced technology on earth and it is forced underground due to food priorities. According to Cooper humans have become a generation of caretakers instead of explorers and pioneers. According to his father in law (John Lithgow) there was a time when the latest technological gadget was always celebrated like christmas. Now humankind is compelled strictly by necessity. The fantasy of capitalism and its scientific and technological advances are a thing of past. That is a very interesting viewpoint of the future suggesting that capitalism is the beacon of light within us and that without it we will languish  in the realm of dire necessity. I never knew that Nolan was a spokesman for capitalism now. The farming  in this film does not seem capitalist at all because the farmers are not seen as accumulators of wealth with their large cornfields they are seen as uneducated, ignorant individuals, which is a perception normally associated with the past not the future.

Negatives

The primary negatives of this film  are associated with a narrow viewpoint and a overextended one.

The narrow viewpoints come with the presentation of a dying earth.  I was not convinced that earth was dying or that human kind was dying out. In this film dust storms and an increase of nitrogen in the atmosphere are the only indicators of disaster but that’s not enough particularly as the only part of the earth that’s featured is Cooper’s farm. What is going on in the other parts of the world? We can’t just take the viewpoint of NASA, seeking to justify the need for exploration, as the only acceptable explanation. It is too convenient because here in Jamaica I want to know what’s going on. Is it that we must see NASA, an American organization,  as our savior? There is no collaboration with the phenomenal scientific talents of other countries. Not even the Europeans are featured in the collaboration process which is very strange. It seems that America is dying out and needs to find a new home not all of human kind. The morale being that if America finds its feet then the world will be saved. So I never really understood how all of the earth is dying out or what changes lead to the increasingly hostile environment. The scientific basis of this aspect is wrong in my opinion and I say that without being an expert. I take the viewpoints of the geologists featured on many documentaries that make it clear that our time here is a mere  moment for  the  earth’s timeline. It is difficult to accept that in the 21^st century we will suddenly have a dying earth or an earth unable to support life when the prognostication is that the earth will be around for a long time in all its glory. If human beings stay around for the next 20, 000 years we will still find an earth able to support life; the real changes will come millions of years from now.  This bias of human centrism associated with sci-fi films such as this only obscures the issue without explaining it properly. Yes Nolan needed some basis to go off into space but it all comes crashing down when you realize that there was no real reason to leave in the first place apart from a situation concocted by the writers who claim that this film is scientifically based.  

Is this film a propaganda tool for capitalism? It seems so because the farmers are considered uneducated and ignorant in a future that focuses primarily on food production. Did capitalism disappear because of climate change? What happened to all the great centres of commerce and industry? Capitalism must have disappeared because it does not seem as if Cooper and his family are planting acres of corn for profit or they would be rich with all that acreage under cultivation. One would expect that the technological foundation laid by capitalism would still remain in the future instead of being forced underground.  Nolan really ignored a detailed presentation of earth for an excuse to leave it.

Are we also to believe that a wormhole was left there for us to explore other galaxies? I went into the film with the expectation that this wormhole would be a normal scientific anomaly only to hear that it was left there by divine beings from the 5^th dimension. Instead of encouraging space exploration this film can make it seem like a waste of time. Why haven’t we exhausted the possibilities of our own solar system?  Why do we have to rely on some empty equation to solve the issue of gravity? It is clear that covering large distances in space will not come with wormholes based on how the film  explains it but by advanced technology that can allow us to travel at very fast, sustainable speeds and with adequate fuel reserves. I would rather take my chances with developing ships that can travel at light speed than waiting for a wormhole to be left for us by divine elements.  Wait we’re back at the old Sci-fi premise of interstellar travel and Nolan with his realistic account has made those premises more believable.  Very interesting.

Nolan also overstretched the divine element in this film with too much explanation. ‘They’ , as the divine beings are normally referred to , left this wormhole for us and also left the answers  in the heart of a black hole. I agree with one particular critic, although I can’t remember his name, that Kubrick understood in 2001: A Space Odyssey that you have to keep things vague but be firm in your presentation. You have to leave some mystery. This is why the ending of Inception was more effective. It left open many possibilities.  Nolan tries to explain everything, even the divine origins of the universe. Not even he is that smart. In Kubrick’s case we left in search of a divine being that kept pushing us onward as a species. It was not deliberately pushing us to force a mass exodus from earth. It was  igniting that drive to go further and change what we thought of ourselves by having us go further into the unknown.  The divine being was something we could relate to in a strange fascinating way because the monolith remained mysterious. In  Nolan’s case  we are given strange explanations as a basis for Cooper to be reunited with his daughter.  The element of love becomes a hokey device but it also becomes a platform for interesting designs on Nolan’s part.  It is because Nolan tried to explain everything that people are now looking for all sort of plot holes. ‘How did this happen?’ etc.  it would have been more effective if the beings from another dimension did not exist just the dimension itself. A dimension we could use to manipulate space and time.

 Nolan  could have been more daring in his presentation of the father daughter relationship by not making them reunite in body but in spirit . Firstly, the film would have been stronger if he left to lay the foundations for colonization of new planets instead of finding the planets and then desperately trying to return home.  This is hinted at towards the end.  If he desperately tried to return home then he would be blocked by some form of conflict such as the disappearance of the wormhole etc.  Yes he would relay the information to the earth but he would have to come to terms with a new form of settlement.  He would let them know that he could not return and that he hoped they would eventually use the equation for the massive exodus from earth. He would know the risks he was taking.  The people of earth would join him later or maybe by then he and Brand would have been long gone leaving their footprints behind. The daughter would be proud and would have accepted his decision to leave her. Do they really expect us to believe that you can move 6 billion people by solving some equation about gravity? I wonder what an abandoned earth looks like?

I just made that suggestion to imply that Nolan could have gone all out and really make the emotional impact heartfelt. In the end Cooper and his team would be known as great explorers and pioneers without having to return to earth. 

In terms of explanation Nolan could have provided us with more visual illustrations. Not enough of the concept are translated visually hence why people get lost in the middle.

A lot of the characters are disposable in this film. My favourite character was Romily (David Gyasi) but he and the other astronaut are easily disposed of. This should not be the case if everything did not centre on Cooper reuniting with his daughter.

In the end Nolan overcooked this film in parts and under cooked in some with the result being that there are some moments to behold and those where you have to question whether this is just a propaganda tool.  All this mystery surrounding the plot was not worth it in the end.

Follow up to the PG-13 discussion with a particular look at Demolition Man (1993)

Any critic, professional or amateur, that originally dismissed Demolition Man (1993) as a silly sci-fi action film needs to reconsider that assessment in light of where  Western civilization is headed. In light of my discussion on the age of PG-13 blockbusters I decided to take another look at this film which I remembered because of its satire directed at what was expected to be a futuristic  Los Angeles society (renamed San Angeles in the film). The action aside, since they had to provide entertainment, this satirical viewpoint coincided with what I was saying about blockbusters being dominated by films rated PG-13. The beret Stallone wears in The Expendables series is clearly reminiscent of his portrayal as Sergeant John Spartan in Demolition Man who wore similar head dress.

Firstly, according to the film the future is a sanitized, technologically enhanced, physically weakened environment. According to Simon phoenix (Wesley Snipes) the people are  ‘pussy whipped’. Most of the people are very dependent on technology, physical contact is avoided in order to preserve a clean environment and reduce the risk of disease or germ transmission and contraction and the moral code is strictly regulated. When you curse you’re fined. One important prediction in this film is that the society is cashless and everyone has an assigned code which provides information on the various credits which they use to conduct transactions etc. This is similar to the trend in society today particularly from a moral point of view where there is increased regulation of profanity or ludicrous behavior which is seen as a shocking act or something from the sewers. We are trying to make this world quite harmonious from a pg-13 perspective when we step outside. Every act of violence in the bourgeois world above is portrayed as savage or barbaric i.e. acts with no purpose and there is no such thing as conflict. Everything must be in harmony.  This has always been the case when the ruling class wishes to dominate and create a sense of harmony in a world where their rules prevail but with the pg-13 blockbusters the trend is clear. The barbarism in some blockbusters in the‘80s and ‘90s is being replaced by a high technological and sanitized portrayal that is very cerebral. In Demolition Man the cerebral element is made fun of when sex is turned into strictly mind to mind contact. There is also the mystery of how to use the three sea shells after taking a shit, no let me say defecating, instead of toilet paper which is considered primitive. Well  this prediction is timely because it is claimed internationally,  and here in Jamaica, that some toilet papers carry bacterial agents. They need to hurry up with the three sea shells.

Secondly, in Demolition Man the R-rated element is portrayed as a criminal, savage class that lives underground.  They are led by the rebel Edgar Friendly who is only about survival. They are the rebels that refuse to be dominated by the bourgeois dictator Dr. Raymond Cocteau and the highly stylized and technological way of living.  They represent the source of conflict  in the film because Cocteau decides to release Simon Phoenix to kill Friendly. In order to stop Phoenix the modern police force  bring back John Spartan, an old fashioned cop from the barbaric ‘90s because they are incapable of handling the type of savage violence that Phoenix is capable of. This is quite similar to how R-rated blockbusters have been taken over by the PG-13 element as discussed previously. The R-rated blockbusters have been submerged underground and those of the past are considered guilty pleasures in light of the rampant CGI on display where actors hover in front of a green screen to appear grandiose and outrageously fantastic.  If you read a lot of reviews of the old  R-rated blockbusters there are many critics that describe them in the same manner as the enlightened bourgeoisie in Demolition Man describe the subterranean rebels led by Friendly. A lot of these critics describe these old R-rated blockbusters as mindless, savage in their excess violence, or stuck in a bygone era. We are told to embrace the dawn of the superheroes over the cowboys. We are told to embrace gross CGI, cerebral spectacle that has no bearing on reality over more gritty presentations of more down to earth, realistic violence.

One final reason why Demolition Man should be reconsidered is in its prediction about Schwarzenegger.  The icons of the great R-rated blockbusters have become holy political figures and have turned their back on what made them great. Schwarzenegger in this film was predicted to become president although in reality he was only made governor of California. If you watch the film again you will laugh out loud when it’s mentioned especially when you consider the rivalry between Stallone and Schwarzenegger in those days. In these days the stars of R-rated blockbusters are viewed as expendable but holy for those that grew up in that era. However  in the pg-13 generation the trend will be, by some, to view them with revulsion. Just like the demolition man was viewed in this film.

Are we in the PG-13/middle of the road age for blockbusters?

I  have now come to accept that the age of the R rated blockbuster is over. Most, if not all, of the blockbusters are rated PG-13. I understand why this is so because it’s clearly a strategy to reach more of the market when a film is released but I still have some issues with this trend. My problems stem from the fact that the release of PG-13 rated blockbusters deny us the opportunity to get a real sense of dread. A lot of momentum is lost when we don’t get to appreciate the gruesome nature of  certain situations that characters normally find themselves in when the action is ramped up. I am not particularly caught up in seeing gruesome episodes but it actually helps us to relate to the struggle of the protagonists. If it’s overdone it can be absurd but when done right the sense of dread is ever present especially when you know what the villain is capable of. It not only applies to violence because R-rated blockbusters would give you the chance to view things in unadulterated  form. You don’t have to concern yourself with seeing things off screen when it can be viewed directly such as a disfigured person or someone mutated without special effects.

Some of the most seminal blockbusters have been R-Rated and they benefitted tremendously from the R-rating. Films like The Exorcist, Alien, Aliens, Predator, Blade Runner, Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Speed, Total Recall(1990),  Blade, The Matrix, The Matrix  Reloaded,  The Matrix Revolutions etc have all benefitted from  being R-rated. I recently watched Total Recall and then saw Guardians of the Galaxy and the differences could not be more stark. Firstly in Guardians… there is a scene where Gamora is stranded in space and the atmosphere seems certain to kill her until Quill/Starlord comes along and gives her support. I noticed that there was little struggle. Yes it seemed like their flesh was disintegrating but I never got a sense of a violent or intense reaction to this disintegration. Most people would respond violently to such a situation when they encounter in naked form the atmosphere of space which does not support life. Instead they tried to make it appear like a beautiful scene with nice colours and no blood etc. Contrast this with Total Recall (1990) when the protagonists are confronted with the harsh atmosphere of  Mars particularly in the final scenes where their eyes start to bulge and their flesh begins to swell as if they are about to pop. That is much more realistic in terms of coming to grips with how you would really act when the environment is not conducive to supporting life.  

Because of this lack of dread that comes when you cant show everything a lot of the PG-13 films have to rely a lot on your imagination or something heartfelt to bring the message of dread across. It can come across as lukewarm or sleep inducing when done wrong. The best PG-13 blockbuster films are those that introduce a sense of dread that have an R-Rating feel. Look at the scene in The Dark Knight w4hen the joker plans to do a magic trick by making a pencil disappear. He smashes the man’s head into the pencil and voila it disappears. If it was not a PG-13 film then we would have seen all of it and the dread about the joker would be increased especially as he likes to use his knife to burst the mouth open with the idea of making that person smile. Because it is PG-13  it is all done in a flash. It is those dreadful episodes that made the joker menacing in that film although we could not see the actual act in slow time or upfront.  The technique of the Joker using the knife to burst the mouth open was nothing new because it was seen before in Pan’s Labyrinth and in the scene where the rebel posing as a maid in the vile captains house got a chance to inflict damage she took the knife and to cut the mouth open. The difference in that R-rated film is that we actually saw it and it looks quite painful but certainly not enough to kill. This is the reality and so because what the joker did is so mysterious or hidden from view we cannot see how he could kill someone in an instant (Gambol) by bursting their mouth open with a knife. An R-rated film would have shown you in more plain terms and highlight why it was not as gruesome or dramatic as once thought. In The Dark Knight Rises the fight between Batman and Bane ends with the former’s back being broken. It is that crunching element that made you realize that all is over for Batman for awhile.  When the aid in Bane’s prison tells him that there is a bone protruding from his back and it has to be put back we are to imagine the severity of the injury but in a R-rated film it would have been easier to show it and so the audience would know if it was so severe that he could not possibly be healed and fully fit in less than a year or if it was not so severe and so explain why he could recover in time to save his city. The mystery of the injury did not help the film. R-rated films would not take such a risk with the protagonist. The most they would allow is for a shot in the leg or a broken hand or foot. Breaking a man’s back is a bit risky.

The presentation of creatures in the classic blockbusters benefited from the R-rated experience. In Alien and Predator the threat of these two characters is enhanced because of their destructive effect on human beings and the dread of what they actually look like. It made them seem more fearsome and threatening. The chest bursting scene in Alien is so unique in its brutality which is all explained by how that particular biological organism functions. You don’t get a sense of that with the creatures presented in these PG-13 blockbuster films because most are digitally created. Watching Godzilla brought out  nothing when I saw the bloated CGI creations in full flight. In the PG-13  King Kong (2005) the R-rated elements were there particularly in that brutal fight between Kong and the T-rexes. A lot of biting and jaw  snapping and tongue biting. It probably was not given R because of the CGI element and because  it was a animal fight. We see it all the time on discovery or national geographic.. It bordered on the R-rating territory but not much brutality was done to humans apart from a spear through the chest. In Total Recall (1990) the design of the mutants are so detailed and realistic that it deserved it’s R-rating but don’t expect to see such fantastic creations now. In that film it made more sense because it showed you how people could be disfigured by the environment and this made the reality more believable.

In the PG-13 blockbuster profanity is limited and this denies us a lot of reality particularly when you have to interact with ordinary people caught up in the ramped up action. They start saying the least offensive words such as shit or asshole. In Guardians… what is asshole becomes a-hole for comedic effect. In r-rated blockbusters when the person says fuck out of frustration or anxiety I feel it. Obviously it has to be acted well. I don’t feel it when they have to say ‘freakin’ or ‘what the hell!’.

In the age of PG-13 blockbusters we have to contend with what is fantasy and reality on a gut level. On a gut level the R in R-rated stands for reality (according to me) whereas PG-13 and PG and G blockbuster films deal primarily in the realm of fantasy. With all these blockbusters rated PG-13 how can I relate to the struggles of the characters on a gut level. Even when Star Wars IV premiered in 1977 and was rated PG men were being shot straight through with lazer beams, leaving a hole, and the jedis hacked off limbs with their sabers. E.T would definitely fit well in this day and age. A lot of elements from the old Indiana Jones films would not be with us if released to day. In those days however at least there was a definite demarcation. People had more of a choice in choosing kiddy fare or adult fare and now we are middle of the road for all which is much worse. It seems that the calls to tame the violence have won out and the remakes of famous R-Rated films such as Robocop and Total Recall have become sanitized, fantastic representatives of the gritty originals. No wonder they flopped.  No wonder a lot of the action stars of the 80s and 90s are expendable in such an age of freewheeling CGI. When the first two The Expendables were released and featured the violence that was customary in the 80s and 90s it was written off by many critics as over the top or showboating. They would rather engage in a more cerebral experience that looks at all these characters as ideas instead of people. In this day and age a blockbuster must have the proper decorum before it can be released.  Blockbusters have become more academic and emotional instead of testosterone or more dreadful as it was in the past. It seems that everyone wants to get past that and create more sanitized blockbusters for the whole family.  

I only like the PG-13 blockbusters that border on what an R-rated film would bring to the table.

LOL @ pic below 

(photo courtesy of highschoolhumorblog.com)

Why can’t we reclaim the essence of the original material or the high standards that paved the way?

(photo courtesy of risk.net)

Every movement that starts promisingly or powerfully always ends in some form of ignominy or final absolution that heralds its decline. Well if not ignominy or absolution then a form of static manifestation or the pinnacle of decadence which is a sight for sore eyes as the extravagance is something to behold. But why? Why do we always reach this stage in our lives when we are called out for not adhering to the lofty standards of our forefathers who paved the way?

The answer is quite simple: we are not meant to reclaim the essence of what made us great. We embody it every day as we go along and we add new ways that will deviate from the original but will be tied to it in some way just as other original manifestations are created in its place or stand side by side with it. We would never be where we were if not for the original exposition or detailed examination of a particular subject.  This original material is inevitably improved upon but never superseded. This expansion moves into the realm of quantity where some elements added to the original are redundant and are vulgar expressions or manifestations. With quantity comes extravagance and extravagance is merely just one way of squeezing as much as can be squeezed from the quality of the original material. It is only when this happens that it is claimed that we can’t aspire to the high standards of the past when in fact the high standard is only reached when we embody all the advancements that came with additions to the original. The original is never complete and to reach a mature stage it must be enhanced in a quantitative form until it ripens and then rots. The dogmatic way becomes almost tedious. When the original element is being formed it requires extensive examination and implementation to guarantee success in some form or the other in the social sphere. It cannot be dogmatic because it has to be tested by whatever reality it encounters and create its own space in that reality. Once it creates its own space it justifies its place as a part of the whole or by becoming one of its many parts. It is almost natural how the original element assumes its place. When the quantitative elements expand the original they do not necessarily make it grander but only refine it or make it even more pronounced.

The high standard of the original was not necessarily as high as previously thought because of the fact that various elements are added to it for enhancement. The real problem is that the original element is exalted beyond a certain reasonable measure and so it actually reaches its peak under the present and not the past.  It is only in the present that the extravagance of the original material becomes unbearable or reflective of decline. The pinnacle of decadence is one term for it because the original material becomes entrenched or even oppressive. When the original was being formed it was actually an inspiring element and gave people hope to follow and to add to it. It is when you can no longer add to what made that original element great, in terms of quality, does it become a great burden to live up to. It can no longer inspire others because any further addition is merely a sign of extravagance. You can never reclaim the original element because it is already there but only in a more extravagant form. Getting back to basics won’t achieve anything because it would mean that you’re actually past the original element and are merely being nostalgic. If you go back to basics you will go back in a dogmatic form because the original inspiring element would have disappeared. People will start looking for another inspiring element that gathers momentum with each addition in the form of support. No matter what you try with the original element that was once dominant it can no longer be reclaimed or its lofty standards will never be reached. Even if you tried 100 years later you would find that the direction that you take can never correspond with the original inspiring element that emerged in a different time and under different circumstances.

People should not be worried about not measuring up to certain standards established in the past. Once it becomes dogmatic it merely becomes one way of doing things. That one way was originally very inspiring when it just came out and over the years all the fancy additions made it soar to the stars however that one way was still just one way. There are other ways, some yet to be discovered. The original element will still be influential in terms of dogma but can’t inspire like the next original element. People must also understand that the highest standard is always set in the present, after all the refinements  to the original have been made.  Decline can only be measured by the other original elements that comprise the whole or the other ways to get things done or to fit in to the whole.  When the original element was inspiring people there were many additions in the form of support but once it failed to inspire and became dogmatic, people gravitated to other original elements that would emerge. There is always unequal exchange in such a scenario. The former inspiring element just could no longer inspire and decline comes when it falls from its high perch because just at that moment when it falls it would have been at its most dominant. You can’t fall from a low perch you fall from a high one and that’s common sense.  You keep squeezing what you can out of the original element but eventually it will tire and when it does tire that was when it would have been reigning supreme. Maybe there were some subtractions but those subtractions would have done their part or they would have moved on to another inspiring element.  The extravagance hides the fact that although the essence of the original element was  very inspiring it was still only one way of doing things and there are other inspiring ways.

So I am not worried about failing to live up to the so called high standards of the past. They were not so high to begin with. 

The Human Centrism in Sci-fi films about Outer Space

I just watched Guardians of the Galaxy and one thing that really got to me was the presentation of the various alien life forms. They seemed more or less like what you come to expect, a grotesque or benign representation of human beings. The presentation of various alien life forms are far from accurate because we cannot fathom what alien life forms will look like at the moment. In the mean time we imagine all sorts of things but at the core of this imagination are our many human perceptions. Can our own imagining of alien worlds really help us to achieve anything? It’s the best we have right now but let’s face it: it doesn’t achieve much. When these representations of our imagination are presented on film for all to see and be visually stimulated it actually reveals our limitations as a species. Humankind can barely go past the moon at present much less to traverse our tiny solar system which is one small part of a vast Milky Way galaxy. The primary question is why do we even buy into these many representations of alien life forms or alien worlds? This is primary because most of our imaginings of these fantastic places and the life that they support are a greater or lesser version of what we know. So what has imagining all these fantastic worlds done for us?

The primary answer to this question is that our imagination is a force that can propel us into significant terrain or it can befuddle us or lead us down the path of delusions. We need to imagine various possibilities as human beings because that becomes the basis for us to attempt something new in the realm of actuality or the manifestation in reality of what should be the idea. There needs to be a more concrete material basis for all these imaginings. If a man/woman suddenly decides to imagine random things it does not necessarily get us anywhere because the possibility of realizing/implementing such random thoughts or imaginary episodes is null.  There must be something compelling us to imagine various possibilities or we would not have gotten this far as human beings. Every endeavour carried out by human kind is grounded in some technical basis. The foundation of this technical basis is human labour which allows humankind to assume a dominant position away from the instinctual atmosphere associated with the primordial beings whose level of consciousness was quite low but gradually assumed the character of human beings as we know it today. As social beings humans have always advanced as a unit. Even if one individual advances ahead of the rest of those in the social unit he carries them along knowingly or unknowingly. In social units humans form bonds with each other with the basic bond being blood relations and then the various communities that share a similar sort of bloodline or characteristic that creates a sense of affinity. These tendencies reinforce kinship and so humans have a long natural history of discovering ways to benefit the community even if individual rewards are there for the taking. Human labour which harnesses the raw materials of mother nature for the benefit of the species is the driver of all advances in humanity.  Humans have always labored. From the day we are brought into this world success is determined by the amount of work we put in. Obviously the division of labour means that many work on behalf of others when you consider private property and the individual making advances initially for his/her own  benefit in the form of profit/rent etc. it still redounds to the community of human beings in some form or the other. If that individual is successful the benefits inevitably spill over into the public sphere. Either the individual will impart his wisdom, wealth or his initial creation that impacted the social sphere. The point being made here is that human labour by extracting the resources of the earth has created many things that redound to the benefit of human beings, some more than others. It is by continually adding to the previous creation that we can make things better and so we have to actually imagine what that possibility is based on the foundation laid by the previous creation of human labour. This creation that adds to the productivity of human labour is machinery/technology. The more advanced it is the more our labour can contribute to the social sphere. We also have to ponder how this new creation will benefit human kind. If humans are faced with extinction the earth won’t miss us. We have to be prepared for the reality that we won’t last forever as a species on earth unless we can explore the frontiers of space. This is where sci-fi comes in.

The films about outer space are always tied into some form of exploration of other worlds, galaxies or solar systems or a fantastic imagining of the likely alien life forms on other worlds that can support  the life force.  Outer space is the greatest frontier humankind will ever encounter and when we imagine all of these alien life forms we do so in the most fantastic way. We have never encountered alien life forms and in films they are either very grotesque representations of species already existing on earth or more benign versions: wise and benevolent although looking a bit odd.  We reinforce our own limitations of what we know. Space is such a vast frontier that space travel in sci-fi films dealing with outer space has to be linked to some advanced form of technology. In the Star Wars or Star trek series travel throughout galaxies, in a heartbeat, is done by a hyper drive which allows the vehicle to travel at light speed. Are we even close to that sort of technology?  The other way for us to travel long distances is by allowing humans time to explore the vast frontier because as everyone knows just to reach a planet like Mars can take quite a long time. In these films like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Alien (1979) the humans go into a coma like sleep for a couple years or months and the spaceship they travel in must have some back up in terms of fuel reserves.  This is the more realistic approach. Either way both approaches assume that the actors exist in a time where technology is quite advanced. In the upcoming film Interstellar advanced discoveries in astrophysics make it possible for travel  across the galaxy to be undertaken, for the fictional characters, in quick time through wormholes. Wormholes have always been a feature of space travel in sci fi but this film seems to be grounded in the theoretical physics that defines wormholes.  The human centrism in all of this is tied into our own belief of what is required to conquer this vast frontier. Even in galaxies far away the aliens are advanced on a de facto basis. In reality we are imagining, through the creation of advanced alien civilizations, our own potential to be advanced. All of these alien worlds are representations of what we aspire to be or they would not be advanced in the imagination.

 A lot of the alien civilizations in these sci-fi  films, that deal heavily in outer space,  feature very human characters in some cases. Even in Star Wars, where there are no sign of earthlings, a lot of the heroes are earthlike. All of the aliens that do not look like earthlings speak English in most cases. They also mention concepts such as democracies or republics.  In other cases the language is mere gibberish or an invented language that does not carry much weight and is a mere representation of how languages that are not English are viewed in the West.

What the marvel films have made more stark in their presentations is the presence of massive forces of energy that can only be channeled by god like figures that understand their potential. This sort of power is beyond the reach of ordinary humans. These forces of energy can only be transmitted in the form of grand magic or by propelling advanced technology.

A lot of the grotesque alien life forms  are outright killers. They represent our nightmares about smart carnivores or a superior biological organism. On earth they are not very far away in the many jungles like Predator. Travelling through some jungles or in the deep sea is akin to an alien world for some and has even been referred to as the heart of darkness. The frontiers of earth are yet to be conquered as well by human exploiters.  In outer space the aliens are advanced living organisms that are superior to humans; this is reflected in how they dominate the protagonists as  efficient killing machines. This is clearly exhibited in the great film Alien.  In films like Avatar the aliens might look strange but they are elegant in a supermodel sort of way with their lanky frames and it’s enough for humans to consider changing the form of their appearance.  

A lot of the peaceful aliens are not much different from the religious kind found here on earth. The Star War series is a good example where the Jedi are mystical, harmonious beings that can channel a lot of energy that would be considered spiritual on earth. George Lucas named the martial artists in China as an inspiration for their creation.  E.T: the Extra Terrestrial also featured a character that is very harmonious and almost divine in its conception. These harmonious aliens represent the better part of our nature or our divine aspirations. It is not far removed from a conception of god but in alien form it ties into a more scientific basis because these godlike figures are also very dependent on technology. They can use their bodies to do extraordinary things  even in an age of advanced technology. This goes to show that all is not lost for humanity and that we are still capable of being soulful, conscientious  people. Even Superman, who is an alien, is representative of a very advanced technologically based civilization however when he comes to earth he assumes biological superiority to ordinary humans. He acts as a sort of inspiration for what we can be as human beings biologically although it’s a warped belief especially as his powers make him godlike because they are out of reach.

Lastly, the question that must be asked is: do these fantasies make us delusional or beings with a lot of foresight? Only actual exploration can answer those questions. There was a time when it was thought that heaven was in the sky or that the gods resided on a high mountain top. With human exploration beyond the sky or to the highest mountain top a lot of those fantasies have been laid to rest. They remain fantasies but can never apply to reality or what we know. When it was discovered that no heaven was in the sky then it’s claimed that the kingdom of god is even further away or that it’s a state of mind. This also applies to hell which was supposed to be underground but deep sea explorations and oil drilling has laid that delusion to rest. Only when we encounter actual alien life forms or alien worlds will all of these fantastic imaginings be laid to rest. What a great shock it would be to discover that we are actually the most advanced species in the galaxy (I will refrain from mentioning other galaxies). The other life forms would not be existent and only habitable worlds would be in reach. There might be signs of life but no life in the advanced self. When we are able to explore the galaxy as a whole then a lot of the sci-fi films we consider great might seem like a big joke or astounding masterpieces. Some would have to be given honorary Oscars or be dumped in the dustbin of history as a reference point for when we still had very childish thoughts of the galaxy.

What we must get clear is that our fantastic imaginings of outer space is no different from the fantasies associated with the past. It is also tied into a belief system where hope and faith is more a source of ideas than actual science for the time being. When humans do not understand something or they fear it or wonder about various unrealized potentialities they tend to exaggerate in a fantastic way. Sci-fi is no different but the basis for our scientific fantasies, related to outer space and its imagined habitants, is still rooted in a human conception of the universe. We won’t be able to remove ourselves from this human conception unless real, actual discoveries are made. Until then we can only keep dreaming through film as we struggle to leave our own solar system in human form.