The Avengers (2012) ****/5: Good film for its entertainment value. The film revels in its superficiality

This film is good despite its limitations. It is good solely as popcorn entertainment and one can imagine the discussions between groups of teenagers and tweenagers (those in their early  twenties) that will ensue in the couple of weeks. ‘Did you see the hulk smash?’  or ‘the visual effects were awesome’ ‘the movie was really funny. I liked that scene between Hulk and Loki.’ ‘the action was worth the money. I came to be entertained and so I was. I would go and watch it again with friends.’ ‘What are you doing tonight? You want to go and watch the Avengers?’ Discussions of the sort will swirl for the next couple of weeks because of the genuine entertainment value of the film. This film is hardly profound and is very predictable however it does have moments of humour that compensate for the lulls and whenever there is doubt the filmmakers ratchet up the action be it with a brief confrontation or a couple aliens invading Manhattan. The film is clearly American centric and hardly encompasses the worldwide struggle.  The Avengers are not Earth’s greatest heroes they are America’s greatest heroes. The political inspiration for Americans or backward nations within its sphere of influence that incessantly kiss ass, is clear to outsiders that are not too thrilled by the film. The 3D effects do add some dimension and it is utilized effectively at points when it comes to the viewpoint of the audience as well as the scale of the action that takes place in the final battle. I must admit that the visual effects are pretty impressive when one considers the scale of the action. In the end however the battle is not as climactic because you eventually realize that it takes place within a pretty confined space and even nuclear bombs are brought into the fray. It would have been good if the film had some residual effect apart from the avengers themselves which would demonstrate that the struggle continues. The end of the film reminded me of other team movies with the most recent popular hit being The Fast and the Furious 5 (2011). In The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), to which a reference is made by the all pervasive Tony Stark, the team clearly had a much wider struggle which required three movies however in The Avengers everything is wrapped up conveniently and so by the next film it will be another alien threat and massive action. It would have been more impressive if the main villains in the film were not so inept at tackling the Avengers particularly from a physical perspective. The use of Loki raises some doubts about actually testing the resolve of these mighty heroes apart from the army which appears flimsy. Even then the movie concludes pretty simply and one realizes that it is not necessarily about the story or making the film worthwhile or relevant for the years to come but about putting these superheroes together and have them wage battle thereby showcasing their power. That will always be good for the visual effects team. Also there is no restraint on the visuals and the action towards the end clearly gets out of hand simply because it has no meaning since anyone with common sense will be able to predict the outcome. There is no reason to cheer apart from when the Hulk gets going.

The film is basically about the avengers defending Manhattan from aliens associated with Loki, the brother of thor.

It is still a good film and it is clearly too big to fail however the lack of profundity paves the way for the other side associated with The Dark Knight Rises (2012). SO there is the side that is more inclined to watch The Avengers with all its thrills and spills and the other side that intends to delve beneath the surface with The Dark Knight Rises (2012). Each film has its own niche market and it is clear from my discourse that I side with the dark knight however I know those that will explicitly prefer The Avengers for its entertainment value as opposed to the profundity and sparseness of The Dark Knight Rises. I say sparseness because it is clear that in this case the action has to be one with the story from a realistic point of view and so it cannot exist unless there is justification for it and the whizz bang cannot occur extensively without sufficient reason. To each his own and the struggle continues.

What’s good about this film?

Hulk Smash; the gadgets of Iron Man; the might of Thor’s hammer; the leadership skills of Captain America; the archery of Hawkeye (not Legolas); and the cunning of Black Widow. When the director Joss Whedon focuses on their particular quirks or what makes them definitive the film is quite impressive on a dramatic scale and the choice of Loki seems evident in this regard when one considers that he is the god of mischief and tries to play them off against one another. Much like in The Lord of the Rings where the fellowship was threatened by the corrupting power of the ring that threatened the cohesiveness of the group. The parallel is quite evident here and undermined the film although the reasons for it were clear in the attempt to build a film solely through characterization. The film does hold dear with these particular quirks by having the so called heroes show of their powers sometimes in duel with one another as well as in the final battle with aliens that clearly did not have a strategy apart from ushering forth gigantic mechanized millipedes. The filmmakers clearly sidestep some issues by bringing unfathomable mystical sources into play: the tesseract (is that spelt correctly) which was featured in the some of the films leading up to this extravaganza. In Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) the Red Skull wished to use its energy for world domination and in Thor (2011) it was stolen or disposed (I can’t recall). This was  very good despite its bloated nature because the filmmakers clearly understand that energy is power. Energy from whatever source, be it oil or the sun keeps mankind’s economies going and I wish this issue was made more apparent on a more earthly scale apart from the interest of galactic terrorists. This debate about energy makes the film timely although it is sidestepped too often. When we are first introduced to Tony Stark as Iron man, who represents capitalism, his first lines speak to Stark industries working on creating clean energy sources through the arc reactor technology. This is good and so with the tesseract at the heart of the film (literally and figuratively) as its energy source the film, despite its superficiality, does score high marks especially as it is energy that powers the universe. Having such energy concentrated in a single nation or individuals does bring the notion of power into question.

The visual effects are superb particularly for  the scale of the final battle and a massive destroyer that can fly. America’s economy is booming in this film lol. The visual effects however are so pronounced and obvious there are not many unique shots. The most unique would come from the 3D shots where the audience is engaged by the final battle. We get a POV when a car is rolled over by an explosion for instance. When Iron Man is being pummeled by knocks we understand the stress of being attacked all round without being aware of the direction from which the blows are raining.

The humour will keep some of the uninitiated from detesting the film.

It is good to see Iron Man/Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) show a more heroic side because it was his lack of heroism and selfishness that ruined Iron Man 2. Maybe they will emphasize this in the third installment. The Hulk is clearly the star, along with Iron man, and he has some hilarious moments particularly one with Loki and in others where his simplicity and ultra testosterone come to the fore. The Hulk is truly for the testosterone driven male audience. It is no surprise that Tony and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) get along so well especially as the two are scientifically inclined. It was also good that they included Black Widow (Scarlett Johannsen) to diffuse the ultra testosterone on set.

The last good thing was the main dramatic moment in the film devoid of superficiality. It is because of this dramatic moment that the team of Avengers Assemble and it involves a character that has been ever present in the previous films leading up to this and so it delivers in this regard. The moment is callously manipulated by Nick Fury (Samuel Jackson) and so we go back to square one however it does seem like a real turning point.

The film moves by pretty quick.

What’s bad about this film?

The overwhelming superficiality and bloated entertainment values are the film’s strongest and weakest points. The film seems to rely too much on spectacle to keep going and so it becomes more about the characters and how their powers can enhance the action rather than a story that would encompass a wider struggle apart from the narrow minded American isolationist diatribe about it bearing the burden of the world through its security apparatus. The struggle takes place solely in America and one wonders whether the film will serve as a rallying cry for America to regain its global dominance for at the moment China looks like it will be the dominant national economy in the not so  distant future. One also wonders whether the aliens represent the Chinese; the US has always been concerned about China stealing its technology through spyware etc and it is no wonder the company shield is in charge as opposed to the army in times of war. That issue about China is pure speculation on my part but the film is so American centric that, as a realist, I will be seeking parallels in the everyday at every turn. The film clearly lacks a dramatic impetus for they spend the entire film concerned about Loki and then dramatically switch to the Alien invasion. This film should have had a proper build up so as to anticipate the climactic battle but it is all so hastily done that it just seems to come and go with no apparent residual effect i.e. there is no bittersweet taste left in your mouth.  The film is self contained and does not permeate the real day to day living thereby making you reflect on your place in the world.The Avengers survive the day so all is right with the world. There were some issues addressing the hypocrisy of Shield but that too is watered down after the significant dramatic moment that occurs in the film. It is all watered down as people forget all about such zany dialogue about those who serve and protect being corrupt hypocrites. Who cares about that let’s see some action. It is all water under the bridge anyway.

There are some irreconcilable moments with regards to the detective work of the characters particularly when it comes to discovering the true intentions of Loki. One can just imagine how Stark came to his conclusion about Loki and where he would be located. Loki himself is not as profound and pretends to be mysterious but his encounter with the Hulk completely abases him and makes him seem so insignificant it makes one wonder about the reason why he was chosen as the main villain. We see him interact with some higher order but their intentions should have been clearer apart from ruling the universe. It is clear that they are in control of Loki but eventually he assumes the titular villain role. The aliens eventually seem like power hungry zombies with no real control over their thought processes.  Batman Begins (2005) did this well when it came to the hierarchy of villainy. They do not have an actual plan apart from getting their hands on the tesseract. It is all flimsily done but there is too much going on to focus on such frivolities right. We need to see Hulk Smash some more. The film runs true to comic book fanfare and exaggerations. There is no real investigation into whether or not Loki was just a pawn or not. He is merely humiliated and by the end we do not get a sense of what is really out there; in the next film about the Avengers it clearly does not matter which aliens are invading.

The film exaggerates some things which are relatively puny. The final battle that is so impressive in its scale takes place only in Manhattan and is not as significant because as Earth’s mightiest heroes one would think that it would be more of an international struggle. The Avengers always seem in control of the battle and one never worries about them losing. It is shocking that the Council instructs Fury to release a nuclear bomb on tiny Manhattan.  It would have been more interesting if the battle was more  extensive thereby forcing the military to intervene alongside the avengers  and so nuclear bombs might have to come into play. Imagine the alien ships actually coming through the portal and there now be a genuine threat to America.  The battle is not as great which is why it would have been good if it was a case where the battle had commenced early thereby giving the aliens sometime to become entrenched in the city of New York and from there make their advance across U.S cities. In the mix could have been thrown in some philosophy about the inferiority of the earth’s citizens or the inherent superiority of the force at hand and the example it intends to set for other planets which it will conquer. All these things are mentioned by Loki but without the means to back it up he is humiliated. The heroism of the avengers would not seem so flimsy for when they do arrive on the scene after a few days or months of occupation then it would resonate. But we cannot have that so the attack is rapid and the aliens without a plan are bamboozled by the avengers and do not seem effective for as drones they are not impressive. This has been the failure of most of Marvel’s films of late and it is sad that they have to assemble the heroes to create something meaningful. Individually one wonders how the movies for the individual heroes will hold together. Who is Captain America going to fight? Or Thor? It all seems so frivolous for the sake of shallow entertainment.

Also how in tune with reality is this film. America is now going through a debt crisis and the economy is not growing yet Shield is allowed to build a massive naval destroyer that can fly. Wow. It is good for special effects and fantasy but what about reality. This is why the energy question should have been explored more effectively. No wonder America has such high levels of debt. Most of the characters are not as significant although there is now the call for arrows to be put back into production thanks to hawkeye.

Christian Bale and his Messiah Complex

This short commentary about Mr. Bale is not intended to be malicious but only an example of the grandiose ambitions of actors/actresses in the performing arts.

I have wondered whether or not Christian Bale suffers from a messiah complex in the roles he chooses to play in film. It came to my attention over the Easter weekend where I spotted him playing the role of Jesus in one of the many apocryphal tales on the subject. I watched for a couple minutes and changed the station only after I had established a certain trend about this actor. It seems that this early role where he plays Jesus was the precedent for more popular roles where he was attributed with the title of the savior. Well the three most prominent roles that emphasize my point are his role as Jesus in a forgettable film, Mary, Mother of Jesus (1999), about Jesus and his mother; his role as Bruce Wayne/Batman in the Christopher Nolan trilogy (2005, 2008 & 2012) where he plays a caped capitalist crusader pitted against various crime factions (external and internal) that wish to affect his lucrative investments; and lastly his role as  John O’ Connor in Terminator Salvation (2009) (Salvation ring any bells) who wages the last great resistance against the dominant machines which is the only hope for mankind. Everyone in filmdom is aware of his famous tirade on the set in a particularly emotional scene.  In The Fighter (2010) he does portray someone, Dicky, who is the source of inspiration for his brother Micky (Mark Wahlberg).  In that film the ego of the character, or Bale’s, shines through especially as a supporting actor he dominates the screen and, initially, it seemed as if the film is about to tell his story. This is not to say anything against Bale but this exemplifies how people can assume roles that they will never be qualified for in day to day living especially as it requires a supernatural effort of physical prowess, concentration and dedication.  When Christian Bale was turned out of the house of a popular political figure in China under house arrest we see the menace of a man who lives out his fantasy in reality. He staged this furor shortly after filming The Dark Knight Rises (2012). It also makes you wonder about the other actors/actresses that have messiah complexes associated with their celebrity status which is more often than not generated following their various representations on screen as individuals that most people in the audience cannot relate to in their day to day living. Even the representation of a real live character in human history can be represented in the most grandiose fashion making them appear godlike to the insignificant other on the other side that has to pay to be thrilled by the fictional experience in most cases. 

The Hunger Games (2012) **½/5: A very timid film that is not as daring in its promise of change

The Hunger Games (2012)

The Hunger Games (2012) is a so-so film which could have been more daring in its approach so as to suggest some form of change which is what the film is about. The change in the film is a gradual one and there is no suggestion that there is a plan on the part of the protagonists to effect a change. There is no clear cut challenge to the system in which the down trodden tributes from the various districts find themselves in the hunger games. It is suggested in some episodes but not in a significant manner and one wonders about the direction that will be taken in the upcoming installments to actually challenge the system from the bottom up. I will say again that it is only suggested. The changes are only superficial and are related to the games themselves as opposed to the wider society which has to subscribe to this backward practice in the land of the future, called Panem. There are some stupid moments simply because there are times when you cannot reconcile fantasy with reality.

The film stars Jennifer Lawrence as master archer Katnis Everdeen one of 24 teen tributes chosen from 12 districts (2 per district) to compete in the hunger games which occurs in the Capitol where the centre of civilization of a future America resides. The so called civilization or centres of commerce is the land of freaks and wackos who have benefitted from the exploitation of the districts that reside in a state of utter destitution. The allegory is evident. There is usually only one victor to remain after the hunger games where teen slaughters teen if the environment does not get the better of them first. Everdeen’s situation is unique for she is one of the first individuals to volunteer for the tourney after her younger sister is chosen via the lottery which is the traditional route. She takes the place of her younger sister because of her endearing love for her. Everdeen’s choice is rewarded because she is primed by her mentors which include the drunk Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) to become a star to attract sponsors. She is partnered with Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) from her districts as it is two from each district who seems to be an ambiguous character but seems to understand the system. Their relationship becomes important as the film progresses and becomes the impetus for change by the end.  The hunger games are broadcast over the television airwaves and so the people of each district are able to view the events as they unfold. Everdeen’s tactics to enforce change become a media sensation as opposed to an on the ground movement. As a media sensation the movement for change seems timid and pathetic because the media can never effect real change for it is only the movement on the ground that can effect real change. The hunger games are simply a tool of propaganda and so change within the game itself is not real change. The real change should come from the revolt of the districts. By the end Everdeen becomes a star of the hunger games when she should be seeking to abolish the practice.  This is truly American as the fear of revolution from below is compensated by gradualist measures where people do not resort to violence but simply a change in the political process through various conciliatory measures. I was anticipating the impending revolt that would sweep all the districts and see a veritable challenge of the capitol’s authority. This was not to be and so the film seemed stagnant and overly emotional for no apparent reason. The film keeps pointing in the direction of open revolt but then reverts to the games itself. When it seemed to be suggesting revolt I was saying to myself here we go but then wondered concernedly at the anticlimactic moment. It is this tension between open revolt and conciliation that is the main downside of this film; it is not clear about the direction it wishes to go in. The film will not be readily identifiable for future audiences because it did not go all out. Whether this is the fault of the book is not my concern for what is presented on screen is the most important thing at the moment not the book. I cannot read the book while I watch the movie. If the movie captured the essence of the book according to the fan boys and girls then the book itself reeks of juvenilia especially as it is a teen book. It does not seem to be clear to the protagonists that the system itself should be challenged based on the high levels of exploitation. Instead of challenging the system the games are challenged and so society seems to go on as usual with exploitation intact. It never once highlights that the carrot is being dangled in the eyes of the members of the twelve districts. Let us hope that the second installment hints at the impending revolution better than this one. Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) is a better film for these reasons and more mature. The Hunger Games is for teens and those adults who wish to be teens forever and so keep their head in the clouds. The next installment may or may not be an improvement and I am not making a judgement here.

What’s good about this film?

The main positive highlight of this film is that it does not shy away from the brutality of the hunger games themselves. We see children willingly slaughter each other in a desperate struggle to stay alive; it seems even more brutal when the younger children are forced to compete with the older ones. The environment too can be brutal as is discovered with a scene involving some poisonous wasps.  The brutality of the games represents the extent of devaluation of the populace located in the districts especially as the games seem to be their sole purpose for living. I never got a sense of an economy and it was not really clear how the districts are structured apart from the hunting and gathering elements. I assumed that it was a tributary system but the games seem to be the only viable connection between the districts and the capital. This is why I am surprised that the revolution was not in the making from this film. I only learned later on that the actual revolt won’t begin until the second book when it should have begun from this installment. The film does have some good moments involving the central character and her archery skills and the propensity to stand out among the other contestants particularly apart from the leading contender from one district; the district from which the leading contender is a resident has put forward more winners of the games than the other districts in recent memory because it is more equipped for the tourney. The other thing that got me were the tense moments that had me considering whether or not something unexpected was going to happen. I thought it would have gone full throttle instead these moments were anti climatic and so I was let down. When the film did become anti climatic I thought the film would get excessively emotional and melodramatic as was the case with the twilight series. The sad part was that the anticlimactic moment was preceded by a genuine moment that promised some form of kinetic interaction. In the moments of headlong interactions, that seemed suspenseful before the eventual let down, I thought that this teen flick was a marked improvement from the more recent twilight series although the films in the Harry Potter franchise still remain the frontrunner. The Hunger Games differs from the two because it promises some level of realism associated with activities one would only witness in a colosseum.   The film has good visual effects particularly in one scene where artificial flames burn continually on Everdeen and Mellark as a design for their costumes as a means to entice sponsors. The film also has a parallel with the gladiatorial games and by extension roman culture. The game itself provides its own spin however but the original basis for its concept lies in these gladiatorial games once held in the ancient Roman Empire. The scene where all 24 contestants are introduced for the first time in chariots says it all. The President (Keifer Sutherland in a very toothless role), postures himself like an emperor in ancient Rome amidst the cheering mob as he greets them and concludes his greeting with the iconic line of the film ‘May the odds be ever in your favour.’ The parallels will be apparent not only for fans of the franchise but for fans of Rome and its corrupt politics especially as it is now portrayed in the television series, Spartacus. The film does portray the citizens of the capitol as a set of wackos benefitting from the excess wealth on display which contrasts with the poverty of the countryside where the individuals are more rugged and are more dependent on the whims of nature; this would explain why these districts are chosen as the sources of tribute.   These elements should be readily obvious to the non-partisan viewer and for these reasons the film must receive kudos. It is always good when a new interpretation of the future comes to the fore and here we have a vision of an America that has passed and this is why I wished to be more informed about the extent to which the America has changed and received the new name of Panem.

 It is good for the film industry that another major teen fantasy series has come to the fore to fill in some way the gaping hole created by the end of the Harry Potter film franchise and the soon to be concluded Twilight series.

What’s bad about this film?

The main issues I had with this film were its sedateness and un-believability at times. It seemed too sedate when it promised kinetic action and a full throttle styled immersive experience only to crumple in an anti-climactic fashion. I mentioned this earlier and so only a few examples will suffice. It seemed stupid because of the constant manipulation by the city officials that monitor the movement of the participants. In one episode for instance Everdeen is pushing towards the boundary which would see her move beyond the sphere of the hunger games. The authorities conveniently add fire out of nowhere and in another instance they add rabid, beastly like dogs to attack the participants. The games seemed too artificial and unnecessary especially as it is initially thought that the participants would be reliant on their own natural prowess and how they interact with each other violently and the harsh climate conditions. I was not impressed with the aid offered to Everdeen whenever she or Mellark, who is close to her, was wounded. It seemed too artificial and defeatist and I thought to myself ‘what is the point of the hunger games when these participants get help whenever something bad happens.’ I am made aware that Everdeen is destined for some higher purpose later on in the series and so it is necessary that she stay on but what is the point if this is not made clear to the non-partisan viewer. You would think that it was a case of star favoritism. Whenever someone gets wounded a special ointment speeds up the healing process dramatically. The more frequently this occurs the less tense is the atmosphere in the film. In another absurd moment Everdeen and Mellark are paired together so as to add interest to the viewers  of the show. You realize pretty early on that the show is a media event and so I was looking for that moment when the protagonists would come to the realization that the carrot is being dangled in front of them as if they were lambs heading to the slaughter. I was disappointed that the protagonists merely capitulated and embraced the illusion. There was not much change effected only a mere change in presentation on the part of the media. It added some level of sensation to the games and would not affect its dissolution in any great regard. It was rather celebratory when the victors finally emerged offering salutations to the cheering public. There should have been an outright challenge of the establishment and it seems the creator of this story was in support of a gradualist measure instead of an instant upheaval of the status quo. There is no suggestion of real change on the ground level apart from one moment where a young participant is murdered and a riot breaks out. These moments were too few and failed to add to the notion that there is no going back and that a serious challenge has been offered to the exploitative practices of the capitol. If there is to be internal contradiction it should be from the forces that are stemming the revolt and this is not definitive because no revolt is waged. Instead of challenging the games definitively the victors are lauded in a hypocritical fashion with no clear demonstration that dissatisfaction is the order of the day among the districts. The film does resort to romance between two lovers as a serious challenge to the system however this is not definitive and instead of a genuine dissatisfaction being expressed only timid romantic gestures save the day. The only positive from all of this was that the film highlighted it in such a way to suggest that this revolt was always a possibility. It only diffused the possibility by resorting to romance and thereby rejected a genuine on the ground movement. The film therefore seems longer than it really is and an endless tug of war between melodrama and genuine expression becomes the normative expression. The heroes are so trapped by the system that not once is it suggested that a challenge should be offered. I waited for the entire 140 minutes for this challenge and it never emerged. It was hinted at in the beginning when Everdeen and one of her hunting partners (can't recall his name) speak of the great escape especially as the helicopter hovers overhead in search of potential or actual escapees. I thought I was  in for a great adventure but this was not to be especially as there is not much variety in the environment apart from the natural features; I was hoping to get some sense of history of the games and also to see the impact man has made on the environment through the participation in the hunger games. There are no man made relics suggesting a legacy of some sort only artificial resonance coming from above. The games itself seems pretty stupid therefore and I wonder if this is a future that can be envisioned for America especially as world civilization is supposed to be at an advanced state. The place itself seems to be constructed without any attention to the history of the world. There is also no sense of other world empires and so Panem seems very isolated and looms like a false abstract in the imagination of the viewers. You call a place Capitol and do not highlight that capital is a worldwide phenomenon not some isolated event. This is the most accurate depiction of the future by calling the centre capitol especially as everyone knows that it is capital that rules the world however advanced capital would not permit the wholesale slaughter of its surplus population without first working them to death and extracting surplus value in its industries.This tributary system seems more backward than advanced however if that was the intention of the author of the series then she is correct for if this is the future then capital should have advanced beyond the excess bush on display.  The civil war which was said to have resulted in the creation of the hunger games seemed rudimentary and perfunctory in the discourse offered in the film and this is the only real historical information that the viewers will be treated to in the film however it does not resonate and does not highlight chinks in the armour. The intellectuals must be very silent and so everything is devalued under capital (not the capitol)

The heroine does not seem to be effective despite her significant presence in the media. In the hunger games itself she just runs around and climbs in a tree and this would suggest that she does not really want to take part so why is it not made clear instead of her receiving all of these handouts. The games at first seem to be repugnant but eventually Everdeen and Mellark seem to be consuming a lot of carrots i.e. they gobble up the illusion without hinting at the hypocrisy.
.
This brings me to the next point for I never got a sense of the economy and how things circulate through trade which would explain the destitution of the districts. This would explain the true state of impoverishment apart from the tributary system which is associated with the broken empires of Greece, Rome and Babylon which seem to be installed forever in the imagination of the West. This is why I did not appreciate the references to Rome because the backwardness of the future is astounding given man's eternal progression from the darkness.

It is clear that this film will fill the gaping hole left by Harry Potter film franchise and the soon to be concluded twilight series. If this series does not improve people will observe it with a sense of estrangement and this is a  constant  attribute of  fanboy franchises that does nothing for the non-partisan viewer. Decline is certain to ensue. 

The Celebrity as a Stagnant Element in Society

'Alright Mr. Demille, I am ready for my close up.'

A celebrity is a stagnant element in society because he or she continually postulates or embodies ideals in their person and in such a case the ideal becomes more and more regressive especially as the celebrity can no longer postulate such an ideal because of death of the physical person or decline of the worth of the ideal. This ideal can never correspond to reality to a large extent because for a celebrity to assume the position that he or she does in society they must assume characteristics, external to their own innate characteristics, which are only in the imagination. When that is the case then the celebrity eventually becomes a farcical version of him or herself especially when that ideal does not correspond to reality. The eventual decline of the celebrity is the inevitable result. The celebrity is normally attributed to the spheres where physical posturing is normally ideal i.e. in the arts, innovations in technology with mass appeal, politics/political activism, warfare and sports. (It goes without saying that even on a small scale within the family an individual that has a successful career is regarded highly and conferred with the status of celebrity) The celebrity corresponds to the time in which or she emerges which is why they become a celebrity because they captured the imagination of the populace within that particular time. The ideal that they embody or postulate expresses the sentiments of the populace in the time which they resided. This ideal normally corresponds to the material forces of that particular period and normally represents the hopes and failures of that particular period.  The stagnation becomes evident when the material forces change for various reasons and so the aspirations and failures change. There are those celebrities however who do not correspond to the milieu in which they existed and so what they represent outlast the period in which they resided. This can be because they were never celebrities in their own time and that their celebrity only came to the fore in later years as opposed to the here and now. They become increasingly relevant as their views or mode of expression seemed to be so contrary to the period in which they resided. These celebrities eventually become eroded because others will assume what they represent and so their ideals become manipulated to suit the particular milieu of later celebrities. For a celebrity to outlast his or her own milieu they must embody the ideals postulated by earlier celebrities and yet satisfy their own material conditions and so postulate dreams for the future. Every celebrity will be known for the time in which they resided but it is the ideal that they postulate which will resonate.

There are certain themes however which correspond to a particular mode of production as long as it lasts. The main mode of economic production in the these times, for instance, is capitalism and this mode of economic production is prone to crisis and when this crisis erupts numerous members of the proletariat are thrown into confusion and they express the struggles experienced by these members and so long as this class exists they will be able to identify with these struggles even if they occurred several years ago because it is typical for this mode of production and so individuals will always be able to identify with the expression of  that particular society. There has always been the struggle between the ruling class and the oppressed class and so the expression of that age will always resonate with particular class groups. The class struggle has always existed since man ceased to be nomads and settled on various land areas. These elements will always resonate externally but the time in which one particular celebrity resided would never be as advanced as the next celebrity. Either in technology or in the mode of production or in the form of expression however there are laws within a particular mode of economic production that will resonate for that mode of economic production but never for the mode of production that will succeed it. It is only credit to the man who can accurately predict the formation of the succeeding society based on the dissolution of the already existing one. Here is where the celebrity thrives as he or she impresses upon the populace the hopes of that particular era or they fully express the mode of production akin to the era or sphere in which they reside. Each celebrity represents the outcome of the production of the individuals that preceded him or her. The celebrity that exists squarely in the present must synthesize and subsume the principles that preceded him or her and by so doing will lay the groundwork for other celebrities to rise to the fore. The celebrity status is tied into the mode of economic production and the means of expression therefore one has to understand that when that is no longer the case the celebrity status must fade and be replaced. When that particular celebrity clings to the ideals that he or she represents and refuses to acknowledge a change in the mode of economic production or forms of expression then they will inevitably be seen as a stagnant element in society especially as their position has political implications because these individuals appeal to the wider public. I am here only focusing on the celebrity as a stagnant element and will later discuss the relevance of that celebrity as they rose to prominence as they represented the views of an era. The support for my argument will come from various films on this subject and as film is the most representative art form it is more than fair even if this were not a blog about film. Indeed a lot of the great films do speak to the stagnant element of the celebrity and it is suggested by these said films that one must be prepared to hand over the reins because the times are changing. I will not dwell on these films but this is a motif in film which is reflective of the wider society that must be taken into account, if even briefly. A film made in 1975, for instance, may resonate thematically with audiences of the present but with regards to documenting the actual social context prevalent today it will not be as effective and will always be regarded as classic by the modern day audiences because it accurately documented the social interactions of a particular period in the past. This is why classic films are continually updated to correspond with the mode of expression of the present context. The celebrity that was born in the film of 1975 will not be a star in 2012. The only claim to fame will be the star making role in 1975 and so words such as legend is thrown around in order to give that particular celebrity some measure of significance but eventually that person will not be regarded as highly as the years move on.

Let us start with the film considered one of the best of them all on such a subject, Citizen Kane (1941). The head of a media empire Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles) rises to fame on the back of his newspaper, The Globe. He believes initially that the paper will be one of the first to expose the corruption within society and give a voice to the people. His rise to fame begins with the fabrication of stories, buying out the best workers from the competition in the form of the chronicle which results in an increase of circulation of his paper. With all his fame and wealth the world is at his feet: he is engaged to the niece of the current president, he begins collecting magnificent ornaments and figurines which serve to encourage his taste in refined goods; this encourages those who follow in his wake to marvel at his grandeur which was built on the back of his achievements which seemed genuine despite him originally being handed wealth on a silver platter. He was still able to begin his own political movement through his newspapers after rejecting a lofty position on the board of one the companies in which he was a major shareholder. When he began his media empire he seemed genuine in trying to capture the voice of the people. He began a movement which captured the voice of the people at that particular period. His empire spread however like most empires it lost touch with reality as the ambitions of Kane extended to running for president and him being consumed by the excessive purchasing of luxurious products. He also made questionable choices such as making trade links with the Nazi government led by Hitler and committing adultery in the midst of a political campaign for Governor for which he is exposed by his rival. He even goes as far to promote his second wife through the papers as a great opera singer although she is mediocre. This was used as ammunition against him to highlight that he was no longer genuine and did not represent the voice of the people. Instead of trying to represent the voice of the people he felt that anything printed in his papers would be absorbed by the people. The people gave him the power and so he felt it legitimized his speculative endeavours which were only reflective of his own ambitions and not of the people. Firstly the people give you the power and then, secondly, you continually believe that what you say and do reflect what the people are thinking in the streets as they interact daily within a particular sphere. When the latter episode takes place you are setting yourself up for a fall because it is no guarantee that you can portray the views of the people especially as your activities have increasingly isolated you from the wider public which can never enjoy the privileges that you do.  Who are the people? His best friend even remarks that he spoke of the people as if they were his. His political endeavours end ignominiously as his media empire shrinks and he is forced to sign away his rights to the company through a sale although he is compensated sufficiently to live a life of luxury in his palace of Xanadu, a sprawling estate, filled with Kane’s extensive collection of figurines and ornaments. The space is large ad Kane and his wife become increasingly isolated from the wider society. The wife eventually leaves him and he is susceptible to the maggots and the rats in the form of his own staff. His celebrity status has faded simply because he no longer conformed to the forms of expression as society continually progressed. He became a stagnant element because his views became irrelevant although he believed that his outdated postulations were what the people wanted to hear. What he postulated never conformed with the aspirations of the people anymore however he was still determined to make these postulations appear relevant. His celebrity  status becomes even more stagnant should there still be those loyal to him that embrace his ideals without absorbing it and making way for new interpretations i.e. they subscribe to his views as if they are relevant although his movement is over. The illusion becomes the reality whereas before the reality became the illusion for aspiration. Even if his views were no longer relevant there were still things to learn from his views and experiences for they could be eventually subsumed by the next generation which would have learned from Kane how to begin a magnificent media empire although the mode of expression would have changed as well as the mode of production. The movement has to be from the bottom up and must reflect the expression of the people who will be the ones to relate to it and consume it.

In Sunset Boulevard (1950) we see the same decline and stagnation in the form of the once great silent film star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson). When she first appears in the film she is clearly an individual whose time has passed especially as the silent medium is now obsolete but is adamant that her once lavish celebrity status is still a force to be reckoned with in society. She recruits the down on his luck screenwriter Joe Gillis (William Holden) to be a ghost writer who would draft a more refined screenplay adapted from her own bloated script so that she can return to the modern day screen which features audiovisuals as opposed to strictly visuals (I am speaking of the talkies and not the music that normally accompanies the performance in a silent film). He eventually becomes her trapped lover because she showers him with money.  She believes that the Paramount studio will embrace her return although she is not aware that new stars have emerged in  her place; she even hopes that the influential director Cecil B. Demille will allow her to return to the screen particularly when he takes a look at the fabulously mediocre script that was submitted. Poor Demille recognizes her faded glory and eases her into the realization that it won’t happen by using delayed tactics. Her main justification is that ‘Without me, there wouldn’t be any Paramount studio.’ ‘I am big. It’s the pictures that got small.’ She could not explain why her dressing rooms slowly shrunk at paramount having once been as large as a street block. She is referring to her reign as a silent film superstar although that does not necessarily amount to anything with a generation now accustomed to talking pictures. In the end her delusions result in tragic consequences. She murders Gillis in a jealous rage especially as he decides to leave her for another, younger, woman or she thinks he does. When she is lured out by the cops with the aid of her butler, who was also her director during the silent era, it is done when she is convinced that she will be returning to the screen. She gives her final famous line ‘ Alright Mr. Demille I’m ready for my close up.’ In Desmond’s case she could not believe that her time had ended and that society moved on without her; she also could not believe that society was not ready to receive her with open arms again. She became a stagnant element in society when she decided to return to the screen despite the fact that her luster had faded and as with Kane only her loyal followers, such as her butler could have embraced such a return. Her increased isolation since the decline of the silent film format inevitably resulted in her absorption of the illusion generated by her stardom in the formative years. When one becomes increasingly isolated one cannot embrace the new mode of expression. This theme was developed more recently in The Artist (2011) where the monomaniacal star, Valentin, slowly comes to the realization, through a painful excursion, that the age of silent films is over for good. He is fortunately able to embrace the new mode of expression thanks to the love of a woman who shepherds him through the valley of death.

We see the same dilemma in All About Eve (1950) (see my review) where established star Margo (Bette Davis) becomes jealous of upcoming young starlet Eve. Margo has to concede when Eve is chosen for a part that she is fit for because of her youth. Margo wished to play the role but has to concede eventually as a result of subterfuge on Eve’s part. It was necessary however to dislodge Margo because it seems she thought that her light would shine forever. This was becoming a stagnant element because she refused, initially, to make way for Eve who was more of a fit for the role. In this sense the age of Margo is no longer compatible with the roles available in the theatre for younger women. At age 40 it is time to give up the reins and stop desperately holding on, craving for another whiff of glory.

We see the same element of stagnation in films such as Patton (1970) where the famous General is forced to accept that his harsh disciplinary tactics are no longer compatible as a morale boosting measure. There is even the case with Vito Corleone in The Godfather (1972) who refuses to accept the offer from Sollozo to market drugs within the ghetto neighborhoods and is almost killed for his refusal which was bad for business or a new means to generate revenue for the various families. Sollozo says to Tom Hagen ‘The don, rest in peace, was slipping. Ten years ago could I have gotten to him?’Vito is forced to accept it later on and it goes to show that his stubbornness was due to his overwhelming confidence in his power as Vito Corleone who was the most powerful mob boss in New York prior to the attempted assassination. Nevertheless he was not prepared for this attack which goes to show that his celebrity never corresponded with the new change in the mode of economic production. The same misfortune was to beset Michael in The Godfather parts 2&3 for various reasons associated with overwhelming faith in his own abilities despite others not sharing his sentiments. When he realizes this he tries to have all his enemies killed yet still isolating those close to him like his wife Kay. This is a man losing grip of reality and the final nail is set with the death of his daughter. Michael always seemed to think that he could legitimize his criminal enterprise without paying a personal price. In Braveheart (1995) the Scottish clans united under one banner following the death of William Wallace. During his lifetime before he was dismembered by the English monarchy Wallace strove futilely to unite the clans; he went as far as seeking the assistance of the nobles that double crossed him. His legend did grow but after several defeats and betrayals he was almost a one man band despite the legend or illusion that captured the mind of the Scottish public. As the authorities focused on him they figured that not much would come of the revolt once they defeated the Wallace band. This was a stagnant element because as long as Wallace was around killing nobles and failing to offer suitable alternatives he would further isolate some members of the populace. One of his friends suggested that he was only leading the revolt as a means to avenge the loss of his wife who was brutally murdered by the English authorities. This suggests that his mission can be seen as personal in the eyes of others for he could not offer a suitable alternative by way of the mode of economic development which the average peasant could subscribe to.  Although he did establish links with the chief noble who would eventually be king Wallace could not drive the people onto freedom with his warring bands regardless of how tragic his death. He became a stagnant element only insofar as it prevented the nobles from acting definitively. As long as he existed the nobles would remain quiet. It is to the credit of Wallace that he recognized this and was prepared to broker an arrangement with them so that they could get down to real business devoid of talks of freedom which is mere idealism. His legend could not advance the populace in the long run but like all celebrities he emerged at a time when the people called out for that individual to express their frustrations. Wallace did this but that was all his stature was good for and it would be pointless to see him advance the mode of production especially as his primary role was to create excitement. He challenged the nobles, even murdering two, and so any hope he had of advancing the cause of liberty faded and so he died ignominiously. He would have had to murder all of them and take control of the means of production thereby empowering the people. His time came with his minor rebellion and his legend stopped there and advanced no further. I say again it is to his credit that he acknowledged the important role played by the corrupt so called nobles. Malcolm X in Malcolm X (1992) shows how Malcolm so enamoured with his position in the nation of Islam and his love for Elijah Muhammad finds his dreams shattered when Muhammad’s several sexual liaisons are revealed and his hypocrisy cannot be defended by Malcolm. Malcolm worshipped Mr. Muhammed to the point where someone asked if he was Elijah’s pimp. His worship of Muhammed acted as a stagnating element on his own development for when the Nation of Islam felt that Malcolm was becoming too prominent they had him assassinated. This was to ensure that Mr. Muhammed maintained his celebrity status. Gandhi the great idealist does realize some of his dreams by challenging the rapaciousness of British Capitalism. In Gandhi (1982) we see his dreams of a unified India shattered when the Muslims decide to found a nation of their own by the name of  Pakistan. Whenever conflict between Muslims and Hindus would break out Gandhi would fast because he had so much faith in his stature. The fighting does stop but Gandhi is eventually murdered for his trouble; his celebrity status acted more as a hindrance for certain groups for he could not prevent the Muslims from seeking separation because he never understood their mode of existence and could offer them nothing but dreams. Like William Wallace he could not offer them something substantial but he did express ideals shared by the populace who sought freedom from Britain. He was completely at a loss when India achieved its independence and in desperation began to fast to try and curb the bloodletting between the Hindus and the Muslims. It was a clear sign that his time was over and he could not accept it.

In sports the same element is present. In Raging Bull (1980) Jake La Motta, the famous middleweight boxer, is constantly jealous of his wife and it reaches the point where he cannot focus on his career in boxing which sinks in the hole ignominiously. He was so confident in his abilities that he never took his training seriously and he exceeded the prescribed weight for his class and his celebrity status forced him into ignominious bouts where he had to take dives for the gambling mob in order to return for championship contention after a suspension. It also ruined his relationship with his wife because his prominence made him think too highly of himself and believe that he was overwhelmingly important which in fact he wasn’t after his wife leaves him following his retirement from the ring. His constant abuse could not reveal to him his wife’s displeasure. He opens a bar and is shamefully arrested for kissing a 14 year old that pretended to be 21. He even accused his own brother of sleeping with his wife despite his loyalty. His celebrity status corrupted him and inflated his ego and we watch him wither down to nothing as he is left in a state of destitution employed as a mere MC simply because people recall his glory days. The times had changed and he became a fat loser in the end. It is to his credit that he retired from the ring however he still used his celebrity status to get some businesses going although his time as a middleweight boxer was over. His boxing was the only claim to fame. We see the same with Apollo Creed in Rocky (1976) who was so confident in his abilities he could never anticipate the rise of Rocky Balboa, a ‘Southpaw’, who is a underdog he fights in a promotional event for the champ in order to promote the American centennial. He is nearly stunned when Rocky knocks him down for the first time in his career and goes the whole distance of 15 rounds. Apollo Creed could never have anticipated Rocky’s fortitude because he was so blinded by his celebrity status. The key scene of that film is Apollo’s complete disregard for Rocky’s training practice of thumping frozen cow meat. His coach tries to get him interested and Apollo waves his hand in a dismissive manner indicating that he is not interested. The documentary Tyson (2009) on Mike Tyson accurately sums up the trappings of celebrity and explains why Mike was so desperate to leave the ring because of the ‘leeches’. His celebrity status was so stagnant that he only used his name to get fights so he could get the money. He was ignominiously shot down by Lennox Lewis and Kevin McBride in the twilight of his career in his desperation to salvage some cash from his name which was associated with a past glory no longer compatible with the modern day.

We see the same stagnant element in romantic films where the two individuals part for various reasons. In Gone with the Wind (1939) (see my review) Rhett refuses to be enamoured by Scarlett in the end and concludes ‘Frankly my dear I don’t give a damn.’ In this case he exalted Scarlett as if she was a celebrity within their sphere and lavished her with grand material tributes which contributed to her inflated ego and her own belief in her superiority. Rhett after various domestic squabbles and the death of their daughter has had enough and decides to quench the flame so that some form of progress in his life can be achieved. In Annie Hall (1977) (see my review) Alvy and Annie cannot get along particularly as Annie under the moniker of her new lover Tony moves to California thereby putting an end to their relationship. Alvy is a comedian and his celebrity status acted as a smothering factor in Annie’s life prior to her own rise to fame as a singer and this contributed to her leaving. His realistic viewpoints dominated her way of living until she was able to get a break and move to the more open air of California. He refused to see the signs suggesting that Annie was prepared to leave him because his viewpoints were dominant for so long and so it comes as a shock when she refuses to come back to him when he goes out to L.A win her back. After Annie’s taste of success she eventually returns to New York and is still drawn to the cold way of living in New York City however the relationship built on the back of romance, where individuals exalt one another, does not necessarily last regardless of old times.

There are also instances where the celebrity gives up his or her lofty position and therefore pave the way for society to move on unhindered and therefore removes themselves as a stagnant barrier. This is evident recently in The Dark Knight (2008) where Batman sacrifices himself to protect the reputation of district attorney, Harvey  Dent, who went on a killing spree. He decided to protect Harvey so that the citizenry of Gotham would not be dismayed by the madness that besotted one of their true stalwarts in the public service. He was notable for trying to put a dent in crime (no pun intended). In Apocalypse Now (1979) Colonel Kurtz was a decorated officer and seemed to be set to become a general but relinquished his post in order to return to the original state of man. The celebrity status afforded him in the tribal village where he finds himself is another element although it too seemed stagnant because he sought to emphasize that man should return to a primal state. I mentioned Kurtz to highlight that as an aspiring young officer who was set to be accorded a prominent position he suddenly rejects the position to go off into the wild. It is testament to his desire to remain true to himself and not be divorced from reality as he saw it from the eyes of a soldier especially as the generals are divorced from on the ground activity.  When one becomes a general the politics of the station seems to be of more significance than on the ground combat. Kurtz accepted his fate and challenged the generals that sent Marlowe to assassinate him. Kurtz may have been on the deep end but he recognized the hypocrisy of his superiors who are out of touch with reality. He never wanted to be a part of that and sought to return to a simple state.

The celebrity status also results in the decline of Empires be it in the form of businesses or nations. The members of the corporation or nation rely so much on their name to acquire credit that eventually it results in speculation and swindling. These empires feel that they are not accountable to anyone and feel that they can throw their weight around. This inevitably causes their decline when they are ignominiously defeated by the nation or the corporation on the rise that does the actual work on the ground. These nations and corporations rely on debt to survive. The same situation affects the ruling classes and eventually when a crisis strikes these individuals resort to desperation and scavenging in order to stay relevant especially as they fear the rise of the class beneath them that will overthrow them especially as all ruling classes profit from the labour of the working classes or those supposedly beneath them. It is in these moments that they issue war proclamations or threats of military action so as to distract the populace who continue to buy into the illusion of prosperity generated by their once good credit. As the rats gnaw at their possessions the ruling class desperately cries to the heavens as the termite infested house becomes a spectre associated with decline and destitution. They can no longer correspond to the need to do the actual work to stay relevant with the citizens or customers and even then age bites and pinches them and it seems as if they are continually attacked by ticks. These people always refuse to heed the warning. It is amazing how the church has raped the name of Jesus in the name of advancement which is in reality regression. Jesus emerged in a particular time and expressed positively the desires of the people. The church rejects science in favour of the dogma of Jesus. The corruption of the church is startling; it advocates that we continue to honour Jesus in the form of holidays although what Jesus fought for is long gone. These holidays only result in the loss of money because people become idle on days when they should be working. Jesus is in heaven already so why are we continuing to celebrate him so fastidiously although his struggles are long passed. How would Jesus cope in these times of advanced capitalism? The people who still subscribe to Jesus almost look silly particularly the ascetics who sacrifice themselves for ideals no longer compatible with the present day. The church however has gotten rich on subventions from the state and its members.

This commentary merely seeks to highlight how celebrity status can corrupt society because it eventually becomes a stagnant element no matter how genuine it might have seemed at first. The variety of spheres in life and the increased division of labour limit the capabilities of individuals to fully express themselves. They become boxed in by that particular sphere and can only concentrate on being successful in one particular sphere. If it were the case that a celebrity was not necessarily needed to advance society this could only come about when mankind realizes its full potential and until then we will continue to see people rise to the fore and express the sentiments of the age but only few will be able to transcend the age because they were limited by the celebrity status they acquired. It is those individuals that run contrary that will continue to thrive because they expressed sentiments that will resonate for several generations to come as opposed to merely being content with the state they found themselves. The individuals that run contrary always seek to discover an objective reality that is inexorable to mankind. The celebrity status eventually becomes corrupted through dogma and a dilution of the main reasons that a particular individual sought to challenge the status quo. Celebrities are trapped by idealism which defeats them in the end particularly if they relied too heavily on the ideal as opposed to the material forces external to themselves which determined their mode of thought