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.