Archives for category: Art

Perhaps you’ve heard the song Behind Blue Eyes by The Who. If you’re unfamiliar, The Who is the band that enables Horatio Caine to make puns about murder while simultaneously putting on or taking off his sunglasses. The song fits within the category of sad men being sad, but what makes it notable is that literally every single lyric is just the worst possible advice to follow whilst being a sad man.

Let’s go through it:

No one knows what it’s like

To be the bad man

To be the sad man

Behind blue eyes

To start off, we have a basic paradox where if you’re relating to this song and taking its lyrics at face value, it already fails. By being able to relate to the song, someone besides the singer knows what it’s like to be the sad man. And like, tons of people have listened to and related to this song! I once heard in like a Ted Talk or something that depression is like a club with the most members in the world who don’t know about any of the other members. One of the best antidotes to depression is connection, and role modeling isolation, however valid it may feel in the moment, is so destructively counterintuitive!

No one knows what it’s like to be the Strong Sad

No one knows what it’s like

To be hated

To be fated

To telling only lies

Beyond the continued advocacy for self-alienation, we are now delving into the concept of determinism. I dislike determinism at the best of times, but using it to justify the hiding of one’s feelings as the only natural response to having those feelings is the worst. It’s the “I’m fine” where ‘fine’ is Fucked-up, Insecure, Neurotic, and Emotional. I know talking about your feelings is like the reverse of conversion therapy, but being honest about them with other people is one of the only ways of processing and moving through them.

But my dreams, they aren’t as empty

As my conscience seems to be

I have hours, only lonely

My love is vengeance that’s never free

This one starts out okay, but then gets significantly worse. There is the initial recognition that hope can exist outside of the numbness associated with depression which is great! Thinking about the future lets psychiatrists know you’re not likely going to kill yourself! But then… we get to love being vengeance. Obviously our singer has experienced a lot of pain that he never let go, and positive feelings he once held have turned to bitter resentment.

People hold on to resentment usually because they believe that a personal injustice has been unpunished, that their pain is righteous, but that hurt only ever goes one way: inward. It’s not the heroic battle for good it purports itself to be. Forgiveness is great not just for social cohesion, but for the emotional catharsis that lifts the weight of that pain from our shoulders. People have a hard time with forgiveness because they believe the crime was unforgivably and biblically terrible or because forgiving someone must mean that you eliminate all established boundaries with them. However, your therapist will tell you that forgiveness isn’t always for the other person, but can be for yourself. The resentee usually isn’t even in your life anymore: it’s okay, my dude, let it go.

A bird let go is worth three in the bush

No one knows what it’s like

To feel these feelings

Like I do

And I blame you

Here our singer moves on to place the responsibility of his feelings on someone else. It would be nice if someone else could manage our feelings for us, but much like everything else in this song, believing this to be the case will make your situation significantly worse. Imagine going to the doctor’s office, and the doctor is late for the appointment. One person might be anxious because they believe bad luck leads to more bad luck; another might be frustrated because they managed their time well in being punctual, and now the rest of their day is going to be out of whack because of this; another might be relieved because they didn’t have an opportunity to emotionally prepare themselves previously, and now they have time to do so. The action of the doctor is the same in all three scenarios, but the emotional response is unique to the individual because we all have our own needs and contexts. The first needs reassurance, the second needs structure, the third needs reflection. Our feelings don’t come from the actions of other people, but are based on whether or not our own subjective needs are met. Other people can support us in strategies to meet those needs, but ultimately our needs, and therefore the causes of our feelings, come from within. There are an infinite number of ways to meet our needs, and if you’re caught up in blaming someone else for your emotions, you won’t find a single one because you’re not even looking at the right problem.

Our feelings, our reactions, our context being subjective doesn’t delegitimize them. Just because the whole world wouldn’t react the same way to something doesn’t mean that the feelings aren’t valid. Feelings are always valid because they’re reflective of needs that are or are not met. Strategies aren’t all valid in that they won’t all help, and the strategy of focusing outward on resentment and vengeance certainly doesn’t.

No one bites back as hard

On their anger

None of my pain and woe

Can show through

We’re back to hiding those tough-guy emotions, so I won’t repeat myself.

Have a picture of a kitten, instead!

When my fist clenches, crack it open

Before I use it and lose my cool

When I smile, tell me some bad news

Before I laugh and act like a fool

And if I swallow anything evil

Put your finger down my throat

And if I shiver, please give me a blanket

Keep me warm, let me wear your coat

These last two verses are about the same, so I’ll do them together. This is when the song picks up, and you might expect some more informed lyrics to counteract all the bad advice that has been previously espoused. You’d be wrong. Our singer is still intent on having someone else manage his emotions for him. Not only does he not want to show emotions, but his ideal partner is the one where he doesn’t have to self-regulate whatsoever. This is an impossible standard to impose on anyone and will always be doomed to failure. He will return to the cycle of bitterness and resentment, and remain forever alone.

We got through it! What’s interesting about this song is that it was initially intended to be sung by the villain of an aborted rock opera that The Who tried putting together. The reason it would be awful to emulate is because you’re not supposed to emulate villains! Mystery solved!

People may ask, Who is Snidely Whiplash, but no one ever asks how is Snidely Whiplash!

Unfortunately, songs don’t come with warning labels indicating that their lyrics are meant to be villainous. The radio DJ is not going to outline, as I have, all of the proper ways to navigate depression prior to playing the tune; they’re just going to play it and cut to commercial. If you fast-forward to the early 2000s, the Attitude Era, when the wrestling was meaner, nu-metal was on the rise, and those with a propensity toward blue eyes began to be angry for what seemed like no reason, we have famed angry man Fred Durst covering this song with his group Limp Bizkit. The demographics catered to by Limp Bizkit are certainly different from those of The Who, and the tragedy of taking this song at face value becomes much more apparent. If you read the YouTube comments for the Limp Bizkit cover, you’ll see scores of people connecting to this through their own depression, or through someone they know who has passed away, one notably by suicide; you can plainly see that people are uncritically connecting to this song despite its concretely harmful message.

This isn’t unique to art. The villainous strategies to corrupt legitimate needs abound. Demagogues don’t provide warning labels either. The racist mass shooting in Buffalo was in response to real anxiety over the impacts of poor resource management on the future – a genuine cause for anxiety, but an obviously horrific strategy to meet the needs underlying that fear. Racism in general preys upon the need for security, reassurance, and belonging, and if it isn’t any of those needs, I bet there it’s one similar. The threats and fears may be real or manufactured, but the strategy to meet them is what is important. Sometimes the most effective strategy is to reevaluate the threat. Anxiety is not inherently intuitive, after all.

Whole lotta really old memes in this one. You can tell I try to cater to the no-longer-that-young crowd

The thing is, though, Behind Blue Eyes is a great song, and it does connect very meaningfully to some very universal feelings of hurt and loneliness. There is a good reason why people respond to it the way they do, in the same way that people respond to racism or similar ideologies with equally terrible practical outcomes. It’s also why these ideas are so perniciously resistant to reason: they’re not based on reason!

A lot of the times people will convince themselves their beliefs are based on facts and logic because that’s far more modern than those rubes from before science was invented, but the same is true for all of us. Reason is a slave to the passions, after all. These people don’t need an argument, they need a hug and to be told they’ll be okay – even if, and perhaps especially if, an argument is what they’re clamouring for. We are driven by our emotions and our needs, that’s fine and valid, but we need to use our heads to arrive at strategies that will actually satisfy them lest we destroy ourselves or those around us.

It should be fairly common knowledge that Batman is the greatest superhero of all time (Suck it, Achilles, you knock-off Beowulf). People have been trying to figure out why this truism exists since it’s fairly difficult to qualify superheroism outside of subjective preference. It has been argued that since he’s just a guy in a costume facing off against the same world-ending events as an invulnerable Kryptonian, it is his courage and willpower that makes him the greatest. He is the most at-risk, and continuing to fight in those circumstances is more noble than say, someone who is constantly protected by a lime-green hue.

I disagree. I don’t think people really believe that Batman is more at-risk – he’s fucking Batman. He figures it out. He’s fine. What makes Batman the greatest superhero of all time is his villains. What people love about Batman is he fights against Jungian versions of his shadow self. Batman represents humanity’s struggle to combat the darkness in ourselves, and that is what makes his character more relatable than being a braver-than-usual fleshy meat sack.

I_Am_the_Night-Title_Card

They are not at all subtle about it

Let me give you an example. Two-Face is a very clear symbol of the duality between darkness and light. Harvey Dent always begins as a friend to Bruce Wayne (in all the iterations of the character that I’ve seen, at least), and that’s why Bruce will pay for the plastic surgeries to repair the scarred side of Harvey’s face – to return the character to his lighter origins. However, thematically it’s always more than that. Bruce struggles to save Harvey from Two-Face because he needs to save the humanity in himself. Two-Face is the most obvious facsimile of Batman with one crucial difference that highlights the thesis of this post. Two-Face will always enact the dark side of his personal Manichean struggle, regardless of coin tosses, and Batman will always triumph in the light. That’s how the protagonist/antagonist relationship works.

BatmanTDKR1_055_The_Dark_Knight_Returns

It’s a comic about a guy in a bat-suit. It was never going to be subtle.

Our favourite Oswald that didn’t shoot a Kennedy, Penguin, fits into this thesis too. Penguin was born into the wealthy Cobblepot family. With that inherited privilege, he embodies the sin of greed and demands more. Penguin is the graphic representation of a Marxist wet dream excoriating the bourgeoisie. Bruce is again similar. He did nothing to earn the billions afforded to him from his familial inheritance, and he became the CEO of a mega-corporation rivaling LexCorp without any relevant education or business acumen. It is unclear what Wayne Enterprises actually does (Thomas Wayne was a practicing physician, not a businessman), but who cares. It’s been argued that a class critique of Bruce Wayne would prefer him systematically redistributing his wealth rather than acting out his well-funded revenge fantasy against “crime”, but within the liberal paradigm of Batman comics, Bruce Wayne is essentially a good, charitable dynasty billionaire to Penguin’s evil, selfish one.

Penguin

Batman is better. Batman is always better.

Scarecrow, Jonathan Crane, is another Jungian villain that begins to show the edge to Batman’s battle with himself. Scarecrow uses fear gas to terrify the populace into submitting to his criminal schemes. Batman dresses like a bat because he was scared of bats as a boy, and embodies that fear to intimidate his foes to make his vigilantism more effective. He uses fear just as intentionally as the Scarecrow, but on a different demographic. Fear is acknowledged as a devastating tactic, and must be precise in its implementation lest one slip into villainy. Batman walks that tightrope like a champ.

Superstitious and Cowardly

Children are a superstitious, cowardly lot

This leaves the Joker. The Joker’s whole deal is that he’s an insane clown, but not like the John Wayne Gacy type. He could have easily been a forgettable villain, overblown by too much camp and vanishing into the dustbin of history like the ICP, but against all odds, the Joker became the most iconic Batman villain. He did this by embodying Bruce Wayne’s madness. The Joker infamously believes that all it takes to drive a sane person mad is one bad day, and while he is proven wrong on many occasions, he is accurate in his analysis of Batman. Bruce had one bad day, and became a driven, megalomaniacal vigilante in response to it. He is held in check only by his single-minded focus on justice. The Joker broke under pressure, caving to unchecked violence, but Batman held on to his values just enough to stay in the light.

Two Guys in a Lunatic Asylum

What do you think I am? Crazy!? You’d turn it off when I was halfway across!

There are obviously a lot more Batman villains, and not all of them fit so neatly into this kind of categorization. Catwoman, sure, is as ethically grey as Batman, and her darkness slightly edges over the light much in the same way Batman’s light slightly edges over darkness, and as much as they want to, they can never quite meet in the middle. However, that’s just as much a Jungian conflict of coming to grips with one’s own ethical ambiguity as it is a Montague and Capulet love story. And I swear to God, if anyone brings up Calendar Man I’m going to lose it. The point isn’t that every villain perfectly represents Batman’s struggle with himself, but that the emblematic villains that define Batman as a character are lasting because they reflect his own inner demons.

This is what makes Batman the most interesting character that happens to be categorized as a superhero. The thing is, though, despite the socially agreed upon categorization, Batman is not a superhero. Not because he doesn’t have superpowers, but because a hero is someone you’re supposed to aspire to. Imagine genuinely believing that it is okay to terrify others in order to dominate and control their social behaviour – you’d be a monster. Who wants to aspire to madness? Or Manichean angst? Batman isn’t a hero, he’s a criminal. He knows he’s in the wrong, and strives for a world where he himself would not be welcome. If anything, Batman is a supervillain fighting against cartoon versions of himself in order to protect the world from his own potential for darkness.

BatmanTDKR3-135 Hunt The Dark Knight

Batman, the libertarian fantasy, pointing out the reality of the libertarian fantasy

The idea that Batman is a superhero has pretty dark implications. Kyle Rittenhouse was found innocent in his own vigilantism through claims of self-defense, which, legally speaking, would have similarly applied to the men he had killed if they had killed him instead – not exactly a glowing exoneration. The micro legality of it is less important than the macro perspective that sees a young boy leave his hometown with a semi-automatic rifle in order to protect property from those he sees as criminals. Kyle Rittenhouse and those who canonize him genuinely believe that it is right and good to basically pretend to be Batman. The reality is that Kyle Rittenhouse created a situation where people died because he wanted to live out his own revenge fantasy against “crime“. It doesn’t matter that he is legally innocent of murder, what he did is counterintuitive to the ongoing functionality of civilization.

On a more abstract level, Batman is truly a villain in that the impact of the superficial ideals of superheroism he represents is a net negative on the world. People tend to look at Batman and don’t see a man fighting against himself, they see a man fighting against incorrigible criminals. They see social systems as not being sufficient and true justice requiring individual citizens to rise up against otherwise unstoppable evil. They don’t learn to fix the social systems through collective action, they learn to use violence to bully degenerates into conforming to normative standards. They see a fairly traditional superhero.

Hockey Pads

I mean, he is pretty often portrayed that way. This is really only my own opinion as a Batman apologist

What makes Batman great is that he doesn’t have to be a superhero. If we see him as a villain, then we recognize that he is no one to aspire to. He can just be an interesting character dealing with the loss of his parents by combating anthropomorphized versions of his inner demons. He can be someone we can relate to when we have to face our own shadow. He can help us find the light by repudiating himself rather than uncritically celebrating his single-minded madness. To borrow a phrase: Batman is not the villain that we deserve, but the one we need.

A dark knight.

The maxim that “the personal is political” has been around since its origin in the 1960s feminist movement. It postulates that what happens in one’s personal and private life is actually quite relevant to and influenced by the larger, structural factors at play on a macro scale. But really, everything is political. Mezzo level institutions and organizations are political. Media is political. Neutrality is political. Everything is interconnected, and what happens anywhere is going to be shaped by, and will shape in its own discrete way, the world and its ideology.

When it comes to film and television, the same holds true. In general terms, action and horror films are inherently conservative. I appreciate a wide diversity exists across all genres, and some great films are great because they subvert common tropes, but by and large, action and horror films are inherently conservative. There is some threat to the in-group from an outside force, and the only difference between the two is whether the protagonist goes on the offensive or the defensive. Action films are usually a bit more broad in that the threat is typically to upset the status quo (think of the Joker who wants to change the world, and Batman who wants it to stay the same – Batman’s ‘solution’ to the world’s problems is ultimately to remove all the deviants). Or you can think of Captain America: Civil War which is one long advertisement for libertarianism (don’t let oversight committees hold me accountable; I, as an individual, know best). Horror films are more personal in that the threat is much more intimate. The threat is more overwhelming and overpowering. The viscera is embellished. But the overarching theme between the two is clear: the Other is dangerous, and you better fight or the bogeyman will get you. Think about it this way, conservative politicians and pundits use horror movie rhetoric to justify action movie policies.

They may seem like us, but there is just enough of a difference that their inhumanity is truly revealed

In contrast, adventure films are inherently progressive. The protagonist leaves their comfort zone, goes on their hero’s journey, and learns something from having experienced the different. Consider the original trilogy of Star Wars which would be incredibly problematic by today’s standards of identity politics: every human is white except for the one black guy who is pretty shady. Yet by the end of the story, Luke has found friends, teachers, and allies across a wide range of species with different languages, cultures, and lifestyles. The final confrontation is an overcoming of hatred, and the humanity of the antagonist is very literally revealed when Darth Vader connects with his son in his dying moments. It isn’t an outsider that is the villain of Star Wars, it’s hatred. It’s an ideology that can be overcome through non-violent resistance – Luke wins by refusing to fight.

The politics of a thing doesn’t have to be overt. It can be baked into the structure of the way a story is told. A character can have an exploratory relationship with the different, or it can be a threat. Protagonists in stories are paragons of how to interact with the world, and the way that the storytellers frame that interaction will inherently be political one way or another. Even the really obvious political messages like in Civil War don’t seem obvious because it is the framework of the story shaping the message rather than a character yelling at you that libertarianism is amazing. Though the beard Steve Rogers grows afterward may be telling…

Sharks, the Thanoses (Thanii?) of the sea, being shown here in a radical propaganda film that tells us that even those maligned as unthinkingly violent can be our friends… if we leave our comfort zone

Superficial politics is what is commonly associated with politics in movies today. Movies that base their entire marketing campaign on how much of a woman their protagonist is, or ensure that a minor character is Asian, or show a brief allusion to the existence of homosexuality in the corner of their film: these are what instigate the great political debates of our time.

When a film goes to great lengths to include every identity, it feels hollow. Films are finite, which means they have only so much time for character development, and peppering the screen with diverse, one-line characters is far more tokenistic than it is a genuine political statement. Even a television series doesn’t have enough time to invest in all the colours of the rainbow. Representation is important in films, but tokenism is not representation. Better to have less representation than just a rich tapestry of background characters, and then produce greater depth.

There is just… boy! There is just one of every kind of you, isn’t there?

I’ve written previously about feminist ethics in ‘feminist’ films. In this case I want to look at the politics. Replacing the male lead of an action film with a female doesn’t change the inherently conservative nature of the format. This likely contributes to the intense backlash that these types of films receive from white men: they are no longer presented as the in-group, which means they must be part of the out-group, which means they are closer to the one-dimensionally monstrous villains than to the heroine saving her own status quo. When Captain Marvel destroys the patriarchy with her laser fists, she isn’t creating a new, brighter future because the world she is saving belongs only to the in-group of the comfortable female watching the film from home. The world isn’t actually changed in any meaningful way, it just doesn’t have Jude Law in it anymore. The dynamic of the out-group threat remains the same; it is simply the content that is shifting. Here the narrative is exulting my elimination, and it doesn’t feel all that great. Hence, backlash.

Jonathan Haidt paints purity as an inherently conservative virtue, and I agree that it is, but it exists within progressive circles as well. When the left cancels itself on Twitter because someone isn’t being the perfect incarnation of allyship, that is the same manifestation of out-group exclusion found in any conservative diatribe. Framing old, white men as the dastardly fiends to be destroyed by a quick-witted teenage white girl and her motley crew of minority friends and LGBT acronyms is a shallow political message of identity and a deeper presentation of group categorization. The categories may be new and turn traditional categorization on its head, but the process remains the same.

A girl!? Inventing things!? Harumph and such!

Superficial politics in media will never change anyone’s mind because it isn’t intending to. It’s probably encouraging further divisiveness because conservative ideology is inherently divisive. Its intentions are to make money. Is it such a shock that billion dollar corporations aren’t actually as progressive as they pretend to be? Controversy breeds money, and enough people buy into shallow political pandering to turn a profit because they’re thrilled to be a part of an in-group for once, and their political education has come from triple-digit character count polemics on social media. Plus it pisses off the alt-right, and therefore it must be good! This kind of film will continue to be made so long as this continues to be the state of our world. If Fox News really wanted to end this manufactured culture war, they’d just stop ranting about it, and it would probably go away. I guess they have their own ratings to consider.

The thing is, though, more people probably learned how to open up to the outside world and fight against fascism from Star Wars than they did from the Ghostbusters remake. Ideology has a place in film, but it needs good storytelling to be effective. The right complains about Hollywood’s conversion to ‘woke’ culture, but progressive ideals have always found their home in fiction. The issue is panderous, bad writing and tired conservative tropes dressed up in progressive clothing that are alienating to the new out-group.

My political activism involves liking movies with really rabid comment sections on their YouTube trailers

I like action movies. Batman is my favourite superhero, and I thought Civil War was better than Infinity War. I dislike horror movies for the most part, but not for the reasons listed here. You can enjoy things and ignore the politics within them, but that doesn’t mean that the politics aren’t there. Those who don’t recognize them are going to be much more susceptible, and that sounds ominous, but it goes both ways. Maybe people will learn to be kind to strangers if they saw it in a movie once? There is a difference between good politics and bad politics, despite what those evil, relativistic postmodernists think!! Good politics represented as preachy and tokenistic only reinforces bad politics. Good politics embedded in a good story will go infinitely further.