I’m OK, You’re Not There

jim_carrey_in_yes_man-1600x900

 
Self-help is about helping yourself to great whopping heaps of stuff . Money, wives, prestige, adoration, a perfect body to house your pristine ego — it’s all yours for the asking if you’ll just turn your frown inside out, let a smile be your bludgeon, and follow our twelve simple steps!

Or, if twelve steps seem too complicated, you can always go see Yes Man and learn how to do it in one. Carl (Jim Carey) is a sad, sad, and lonely guy; his wife Stephanie (Molly Sims) ditched him after six months, and he has responded by going fetal. He is stuck in a boring dead-end job at a bank, won’t answer his phone, barely leaves his house, and spends most nights at home watching rented DVDs by himself, too bored (we learn) to even masturbate. Finally, he admits he has a problem, and goes to a self-help revival meeting of the “Yes-Men” led by one Terrence Bundley (Terrence Stamp). Terrence claims that “when you say yes…you embrace the possible!” Armed with this singular, and indeed, single, philosophy, Carey heads off determined to say yes every time the opportunity presents itself . Soon he’s giving rides to homeless people, learning Korean, sucking up to his apocalyptically nerdy boss, approving dicey loans, and — most satisfyingly — canoodling with the yummy Alison (Zooey Deschanel) who looks (and indeed, in real life, actually is) about two decades younger than him. Who wouldn’t say yes to that?

Indeed, the whole Yes Man concept is charged with a kind of lobotomized libidinousness. Saying “yes” to everything allows Carl to absolve himself of all personal responsibility. By replacing his conscience with an arbitrary shibboleth, Carl escapes from Adam’s curse. He no longer knows good from evil; he now literally knows only what he says. Liberated from moral choice, he is invested with an irresistible prelapsarian glamour. He charms his immediate supervisor, Norm (Rhys Darby) by attending his Harry Potter costume parties; he charms his best friend’s fiancée by agreeing to host her bridal shower; he charms a jumper back from the ledge by leading the onlookers in a rousing singalong. Moroever, Carl’s newfound charisma has a definite erotic edge. Women in bars and in bridal stores swoon and giggle when he flirts, his toothless septuagenarian landlady neighbor gives him a surprisingly skillful blowjob; Alison falls seamlessly in love with him. Even his ex-wife wants to get back in his bed.

Of course, there are some downsides to the yes-man program. If you never say no, people are going to take advantage of you — and, indeed, Carl’s home is virtually taken over by the parasitic Rooney (Danny Masterton.) More importantly, abdicating personal responsibility isn’t much different than abandoning personhood altogether; Carl sets no boundaries on his self, and therefore, his self basically disappears. His appeal is that he is all things to all people — a nerd to Norm; a daring adventurer to Alison; a drinking buddy to his friend Peter (Bradley Cooper); and so forth. The effect is magical, but it’s neither trustworthy nor exactly human; and when Alison figures out what’s going on, she’s repulsed. “How do I know if anything you did was really true?” she asks him in horror before dumping his bony ass.

It is at this point that the movie really reveals its diabolical genius. Losing Alison makes Carl realize that saying “yes” is not in itself a sufficient philosophy. There’s something else…something missing. But what is it? Confused, he seeks out guru Terence again, who obligingly explains that he must continue to say yes…but only when he actually, really want to! “Yes” is simply a step along the way to the goal of a new, exciting, and fully functional self.

But what kind of functional self is this, anyway? Both Peter and Alison mock the “say yes because you really want to” philosophy as an over-obvious tautology — you need a guru to tell you that? When you start to think about it, though, the philosophy is far from obvious. In fact, it’s the opposite of obvious. It’s flat-out stupid. In the first place, there are some things you simply can’t afford to say yes to, no matter how much you want to — Carl and Alison have mysteriously bottomless reserves of cash with which to indulge their consumer flights of fancy, but that’s hardly true for everyone. And in the second place — well, you don’t have to be a Kantian to realize that even the more complicated Yes Man philosophy presents certain moral problems. Even if you really, really want to do so, there are many things you just shouldn’t say yes to — unprotected sex with a stranger, for example, or murdering your boss, or invading Iraq. It is possible to deeply desire to do things that are harmful to others. Because you’re not the only one in the world, you have an obligation not to fuck your neighbors over just because you feel like it.

Of course, Yes Man pretends that it is about reaching out; helping homeless people, organizing bridal showers for friends, being truthful with your lover. Saying “yes” is supposed to be a way to open yourself to life. In fact, though, the opposite is the case: it is not the universe which fills Carl, but Carl who fills the universe. There he is saving the jumper; there he is match-making; there he is on television at a football game; there he is climbing the corporate ladder, there he is romancing a woman who, by all normal standards, is a good bit out of his league. His inner drama, his healing, is the focus of the narrative, and everyone revolves around it. Carl starts out as a failed narcissist; he ends as a successful one.

This is perhaps most clear in the scene in which Carl’s ex-wife asks him to come to her house. She has just broken up with her lover, and is horribly distraught. Weeping, she comes on to Carl, asking him to stay the night. Trapped by his “yes” pledge, he almost agrees — but then he says “no”. Undoubtedly this is the right thing to do for both of them…but Carl doesn’t explain this, or try to comfort her, or show any especial sympathy for a woman who he claims to have loved. Instead, his voice, when he utters the crucial negative, is both triumphal and somewhat sneering. She made him suffer, and now he doesn’t need her.

Carl’s new self-confidence, his new self-identity, is, in other words, built on the most puerile kind of revenge fantasy. He gets to humiliate the woman who broke his heart. And, of course, the best part is that, once he’s free of her, she ceases to matter. We never see her again — she’s out of his life and now he can concentrate on what’s best for him and him alone. Her pain and sadness aren’t real, because nobody is real; they’re all just small cogs in the blandly improbable wish fulfillment that Carey and company have concocted. In this daydream, all that truly exists is Carl, the self he’s helped, and his own oblivious, ravenous chant — “yes, no, yes, no, yes, no” — spoken not to communicate with others, but to efface them.

Utilitarian Review 1/12/13

11
 
On HU

I’m really pretty thrilled with everything we got to post this week on the blog. Just thought I’d mention that.

Featured Archive Post: Kinukitty on Joann Safar’s Le Petit Vampire.

I wrote on Nicki Minaj and the pros and cons of multiple personalities.

I wrote about Django Unchained and what black people know about violence in America.

Robert Stanley Martin with the first part of his massive reconsideration of Jim Shooter’s tenure as editor-in-chief at Marvel.

Charles Reece on Django Unchained and white folks watching black folks fight.

Katherine Wirick on Kent State, the docudrama, and the obscenity and allure of fiction as history.

Domingos Isabelinho on Fred’s Le Petit Cirque, with tons of gorgeous images from the comics.

Qiana Whitted on moral freedmen and dangerous slaves in Django Unchained.

 
Utilitarians Everywhere

At the Atlantic I reviewed Alisa Valdes memoir The Feminist and The Cowboy, in which she talks about the joys of traditional gender roles.

Later in the week Valdes revealed that the cowboy had abused her, so I wrote a follow up piece.

Also at the Atlantic I wrote about how Jeffrey Eugenides’ advice to write like you’re dead is stupid.

At Splice Today I demand filibuster reform now!

Also at Splice I argue that writers should sometimes take no for an answer.
 
Other Links

James Romberger interviewed about his comic Post York.

James Romberger and Marguerite Van Cook discuss their work on 7 Miles a Second, the comic they did with David Wojnarowicz which is being re-released by Fantagraphics.

Tucker Stone on the best comics of 2012.

Feministing on Dear Prudence and rape denial.

Amanda Marcotte on why a viral rape infographic is misleading.

A detailed and depressing explanation of why Congress sucks and will always suck.

Amanda Hess defends Zooey Deschenal.
 
This Week’s Reading

Finished The Feminist and The Cowboy. Also finished 50 Shades of Grey, thank god — possibly the worst 1600+ pages I have ever read in my life. Also read Elmore Leonard’s Rum Punch, which is pretty great.

Quentin Tarantino’s Slave on the Road; or, Josiah Henson Unchained

The entire Django Unchained roundtable is here.
_____________
 

Antebellum fugitive slaves were criminals according to the laws of their day. Their labor, their bodies, and any future that they might imagine belonged to the estates of the people who held the bill of sale. And so when enslaved black men and women wrote the stories of their escape in order to advocate for abolition, they took special care in persuading readers not only that the laws they had broken were unjust, but also that they had the moral strength to manage the freedom they had “stolen.” This is why when a Maryland slave named Josiah Henson, having been deceived by the master who vowed to manumit him, raised an axe above the head of his owner’s sleeping son, Henson stopped short of landing the fatal blow. In The Life of Josiah Henson, Formerly a Slave, Now an Inhabitant of Canada (1849), he explains:

It was self-defence, — it was preventing others from murdering me, — it was justifiable, it was even praiseworthy. But now, all at once, the truth burst upon me that it was a crime. […] I was about to lose the fruit of all my efforts at self-improvement, the character I had acquired, and the peace of mind which had never deserted me. […] I shrunk back, laid down the axe, crept up on deck again, and thanked God, as I have done every day since, that I had not committed murder. (42-43)

Scenes such as this constitute a fairly common trope in the slave narrative genre, one that literary critic Raymond Hedin described as the slave on the road. These moments, however accurately conveyed, were deployed in abolitionist narratives to refute the notion that without constant supervision, black people would succumb to so-called baser instincts that could turn “a pleasant-tempered fellow, into a savage, morose, dangerous slave” (Henson 41). Fugitive slaves responded by calling attention to the times in which they were out of the watchful eyes of their masters, or in a situation in which a white person was particularly vulnerable – in these instances, the enslaved would demonstrate their self-control and virtuous character by adhering to a higher standard of behavior. Henson, the man whom Harriet Beecher Stowe once tried to credit as one of the inspirations for Uncle Tom’s Cabin, presented himself as a man who held to an especially strict moral code. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Henson would have been able to free himself or his family if he hadn’t eventually broken the law.

I thought about Josiah Henson when I watched the opening scene of Quentin Tarantino’s film, Django Unchained. The white bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz, has forcibly purchased (rescued?) Django after a shoot out with the Speck brothers, the two slave traders transporting him. With one of the brothers killed and another trapped under his horse, Schultz turns to the small group of enslaved black men that had been chained to Django just minutes before and tosses them the keys to their leg irons:

SCHULTZ: “So as I see it, when it comes to the subject of what to do next, you gentlemen have two choices. One, once I’m gone, you lift that beast off the remaining Speck, then carry him to the nearest town. Which would be at least thirty-seven miles back the way you came. Or…two, you unshackle yourselves, take that rifle over there…put a bullet in his head, bury the two of them deep, and make your way to a more enlightened area of the country. The choice is yours.”

Hearing this, the slave trader under the horse curses the approaching group of newly freed men and then begs for his life as they stand over him in silence. When the rifle shot sounds, a sudden spray of blood and flesh explodes from his head and the scene ends.

“The choice is yours.” With the bounty hunter’s words, Tarantino’s film enters into a larger conversation about race, representation, and the negotiations of moral responsibility that has as much to do with affirming Henson’s decision to set aside his axe as it does with celebrating a kind of vengeful catharsis that is without consequence. The film reminds us that in the slave’s narrative, honor was also a bounty to be hunted; the accounts of Frederick Douglass, Harriet Jacobs, Henry Bibb, and others were strategic and deliberative “fictions of factual representation,” as scholar William Andrews put it, even if they were not as brutally self-serving as Django.

In other words, Django Unchained may be a Blaxploitation Western film (by way of Oscar Michaeux as Brian persuasively argues), but it is also reimagines the slave on the road narrative in a way that favors a highly individualistic sense of honor and responsiveness over collective survival. “Each man to his own Canada,” to quote Raven Quickskill, Ishamel Reed’s fugitive slave-poet. I actually found the postmodern satire in Django Unchained to be as satisfyingly irreverent as Reed’s novels, yet Schultz’s “two choices” – made explicit here and implied repeatedly throughout the film – pose a more interesting question for me about exactly what need Tarantino’s revenge fantasy is meant to satisfy.

(Of this opening scene, it is worth noting that Vertigo’s comic book adaptation of Django Unchained does not end in the same fashion. It closes with the group of black men in deliberation, unlocked chains at their feet, while the Speck brother’s wide blue eyes await their decision. Much of the film’s bloodshed is minimized in the first issue of the serial that is based on Tarantino’s original screenplay with art by R.M. Guéra and Jason Latour. Whether or not the rest of the story will take the same visual risks as a comic like Kyle Baker’s Nat Turner remains to be seen.)

django_comic1

But we can only go so far with an apples-to-apples comparison of Django and Nat Turner, or Josiah Henson for that matter. Django expresses qualms during his work with Schultz about killing a man in front of his child, while in a different context he maintains his grim disguise when one of Calvin Candie’s “Mandingo” fighters is torn apart by dogs. In the early scenes if Django appears to act recklessly or in anger, his white partner’s arrest warrants are there to protect him from the repercussions of these emotions. Still Django never forgets that he is on the road – or that his humanity is commodified by the color of his skin – and in return for his resolve, he and Broomhilda live to see her master’s house burn to the ground.  Of course, it may sound too good to be true (and one of the more useful reviews of the film assures us that it is) and what happens after the credits roll is unclear to say the least. But as with the cultural analysis of texts like William Styron’s The Confessions of Nat Turner or Alice Walker’s The Color Purple, I am curious about what Django’s choices reveal about us and the moment in which we live.

I wonder, for instance, what to make of the fact that this controversial, and now Oscar-nominated, blockbuster film comes at the close of President Obama’s first term in office. Once praised for his even-tempered composure and open-mindedness, Barack Obama’s cool disposition has been relentlessly scrutinized for the past four years, notably during his intense presidential campaign in 2008, in the aftermath of the BP oil spill (“One time, go off!” pleaded Spike Lee), and more recently during his debates with Mitt Romney in 2012. Progressives cringe as members of Congress and the press pool cut him off or when an attention-seeking politician jabs a finger in his face – “Have you thought about getting angrier?” Keith Olbermann once asked. But as Ta-Nehisi Coates astutely notes,
 

 …Politicized rage has marked the opposition to Obama. But the rules of our racial politics require that Obama never respond in like fashion. So frightening is the prospect of black rage given voice and power that when Obama was a freshman senator, he was asked, on national television, to denounce the rage of Harry Belafonte. This fear continued with demands that he keep his distance from Louis Farrakhan and culminated with Reverend Wright and a presidency that must never betray any sign of rage toward its white opposition. Thus the myth of “twice as good” that makes Barack Obama possible also smothers him. It holds that African Americans—­enslaved, tortured, raped, discriminated against, and subjected to the most lethal homegrown terrorist movement in American history—feel no anger toward their tormentors.

 
Every insult and public outrage is now accompanied by pleas for President Obama to get angrier, drop the Spock routine and act on his emotion; in other words, to make a different choice. Not to overstate the similarities (and I’m sure I’m not the only one to make this connection), but Tarantino’s film seems crafted to elicit the same urge from his audience as Django’s makes his labyrinthine journey into “Candieland.” When Broomhilda’s bill of sale has been transferred and Django stands at the brink of a precarious future that, however fragile, is his own – it is the bounty hunter who decides what comes next. Schultz, after repeatedly advising caution to keep Django in control, is the one who ultimately determines that the collective cost of allowing the slave master to live is too high. Authorized, then, by this impetuous act and driven by the fear of losing his wife, Django steps onto the road and becomes the “dangerous slave” whose Canada is a plantation house splattered with blood.

I enjoyed the film. Though as I watched, I must admit that I found myself wishing that Django had been the one to confront Candie first. None of the carnage that follows means much without his agency in that moment. The fact that he doesn’t pull the trigger says a lot, I think, about the choices that continue to guide our understanding of race, power, and moral responsibility on the road today.

Jamie Fox in Django Unchained

Kent State — The Movie

In 1981, NBC aired Kent State, a two-hour dramatization of the May 4th shooting at Kent State University. Although it won an Emmy for Outstanding Directing in a Limited Series or a Special, the film is out of print; the easiest way to see it is to watch the poor-quality copy uploaded to the Internet by the film’s own historical consultant.
 

nbc_kentstate

 
Two years later, four communications professors at Kent State published the results of their study of the film’s effect on faculty, staff, and students. The faculty and staff they surveyed had been present at the university in 1970, but the students had not. The study asked whether viewers perceived docudramas as fact or fiction, and the authors seem to have been surprised by their results:

The students presently at Kent State can scarcely be said to represent a completely uninformed audience. There are symbolic reminders of the event on campus and, far from being forgotten, there is a commemorative ceremony held annually which receives media coverage. For these reasons it would be logical to assume that Kent State students are an informed and therefore critical audience, lacking only firsthand knowledge. Yet, the students used in this study found the Kent State docudrama to be highly believable despite their critical advantage over a completely nai?ve audience. One student said that the film “made the events real.”

This is the perfect simulacrum. People who park their cars on the blacktop where bodies fell require a re-presentation of those deaths, performed ten years after the fact, on a different campus, by no one who was there, in order to be moved.

I watched Kent State, partly as research for my own work but mostly out of curiosity. As a film, it’s just not very good, which may be fortunate; if it functioned effectively as entertainment, if it were skillful and engaging, it might be more obscene than it is.

In the classic sense of obscenity, it exploits the sex lives, real and imagined, of the dead students; Allison Krause lounges in her boyfriend’s shirt and nothing else, sorority girls fall into Bill Schroeder’s lap. Historical consultant J. Gregory Payne wrote about the development of the project, “According to my NBC informants, network programmers felt the screenplay was too political. Apparently the NBC executives preferred a more human focus and had considered developing a romantic theme between some of the principal characters.”

More obscene, to me, is the leaden dialogue. Sandy Scheuer (Talia Balsam) tells another student, “I care about helping people, and my family, and my friends, and grilled cheese sandwiches.” What would be a tolerable, though clumsy, bit of shorthand if it were used to mark the boundaries of a fictional character seems like an injustice when it recreates someone who was real and is dead. It’s not that I believe real people should never be the subject of fiction—I am an eager audience for art that plays with history; but most of the time the historical figures concerned have already left behind a substantial record of their presence in the world. Shakespeare in Love does nothing to diminish Shakespeare while King Lear is still in print, and it matters very little whether the Siegfried Sassoon who appears in Regeneration is strictly accurate when anyone can read Memoirs of a Fox-Hunting Man and know Sassoon as he wished to be known. However, the students of May 4, who were all between nineteen and twenty when they died, are unable to speak for themselves now. Bill Schroeder was a nice kid, an athlete, a Stones fan; he had little time to be anything else.

Worst of the movie’s sins is the contrived dramatic irony that loads almost every line the four students speak: “Big stuff happens and it’s never where you are,” says Jeff Miller (Keith Gordon). It makes the deaths seem prefigured, when the twin tragedies of Kent State were that no one—save the members of Black United Students, who did not attend the Monday demonstration—expected that the Guard would carry live ammunition, and that no one expected Miller, Krause, Scheuer and Schroeder to be the ones to die. The screenplay’s sense of irony brings a false order to the workings of chaos.

The film, though it offers color, motion and sound, is less alive than black-and-white photographs of Allison Krause laughing or Bill Schroeder playing basketball—except for two scenes, both of which get an assist from pop culture contemporary to the shooting. The first is the National Guard rolling into Kent as Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s “Ohio” plays; the second is a young Guardsman resting in a troop transport and playing the Grateful Dead’s “Uncle John’s Band” on an acoustic guitar.

The Dead started playing “Uncle John’s Band” live in late 1969, and released it on Workingman’s Dead in June 1970. It is a fantasy of unification, buoyed by three voices in close harmony. By this time the band had been through a traumatic experience at the Altamont speedway: “It was like a nice afternoon in hell,” Jerry Garcia said later. Along with the Byrds’ Sweetheart of the Rodeo, Dylan’s John Wesley Harding, the first two albums by the Band and the work of Gram Parsons, Workingman’s Dead was part of the country rock movement, an attempt to return to the womb of American folk culture. Coming as it did mostly from people who had only a few years earlier attempted to set themselves apart from America in the most dramatic way, this movement could be called a retreat. Considering that they were required to rebuild by hand the America in which they hoped to find a place, you could also call it courageous.

On record “Uncle John’s Band” fulfills itself: the three voices ask for a homecoming and create one as they reach for the chorus. In Kent State, there is only one voice, a small one, and one tinny guitar. The singer is fresh-faced and young, innocent-looking; now he calls softly for a joining of hands, but in less than twenty-four hours he’ll be looking out at the students from behind a gas mask and a gun. Without harmony the song’s requests—Will you come with me? Won’t you come with me?—lose strength and falter, too fragile for their circumstances. People bring pop culture into their lives and invest it with meaning, whether or not it is strong enough to hold up the weight. The night before I wrote this essay, I learned that my father had cancer. I sat in my studio the next day, under his army jacket, and watched the rain fall on Broad Street while “Uncle John’s Band” played, and then I hid my face in my hands.

God damn, well, I declare—have you seen the like?

A more startling intersection between pop and power occurs two scenes earlier. The ROTC building has just caught fire, an event the film does not depict accurately; it shows a group of students lighting the building, then cheering as it burns, when in fact, as my father and many other eyewitnesses have recalled, the students made multiple attempts over the course of roughly twenty minutes to set fire to the building but failed, and had long since wandered away when it exploded into flames.

As the building burns, Professor Glenn Frank (Michael Higgins) says to Professor Ted Arnold (John Getz), “I look at that old pile of burning junk, and all I can see is my old man. And his old man before him, and the grandchildren I don’t have yet. And I wonder what the hell on this earth really matters.” Frank was a real person, a geology professor who saved students’ lives on May 4 by standing between them and the Guard, but this is no real human language; the words assume the shape of profundity but contain nothing. They back away from the building. An assembled crowd of students claps anemically and sings, “Come on baby, light my fire.” The words fade away but the clapping continues. Then it gives way to a low rumble; students and professors turn their heads, there are shots of headlights and huge wheels, and then, as the film cuts to a Dutch-angled shot of a troop transport approaching on the road, we hear the riff that opens “Ohio.”

This is a story my father told me: Gary Lazaroff, one of his college friends, worked at Cleveland’s Gund Arena in the mid-‘70s, and when CSNY passed through on their reunion tour, one of them told him how “Ohio” came to be written. On the fourth of May, Crosby, Stills and Nash were in the process of sobering up from their previous evening’s high when Neil Young appeared. Earlier in the day, he had heard the news from Kent, and had gone out and walked the streets alone, weeping.

I grew up with the song. My father had the So Far LP, and he used to play it every year on the fourth, until the turntable broke and the speakers stopped working. Long before I found out what it meant, it was the sound of a wound, something unresolved, that riff like clenched teeth. At the end of each verse the voices marked out every syllable in the name of the place where I lived: O-hi-o.

The shot goes on for a full minute, as the first transport drives toward us and out of the frame, followed by another, and another, and another. The glare from their headlights blurs the Guardsmen’s faces; astride their Jeeps they look mass-produced. The vehicles seem oversized, out of scale, the embodied will and power of the state. This scene cracks the film’s fac?ade of artificial realism; real life doesn’t have nondiegetic sound, and “Ohio” wasn’t recorded until thirteen days after the Guard arrived in Kent. The effect is conspicuously cinematic, yet nothing else in the film feels as “real.” “In a world that really has been turned on its head,” Guy Debord once wrote, “truth is a moment of falsehood.”

In the end Kent State offered neither a sufficiently comforting myth nor a pleasurable enough spectacle to consume the events that inspired it, as Gone With the Wind and Birth of a Nation consumed Reconstruction. It produced no image more powerful than John Filo’s photograph of Mary Vecchio with her arms outstretched, and no real lasting effect. The damage it did was minimal. It might even have done some good: if a few channel-surfers happened to learn Sandy Scheuer’s name, if Allison Krause became, for a moment, “real” to a student in the Kent State communications program, that doesn’t make up for the years they should have lived, but it’s better, arguably, than being forgotten.

Still, I hate Kent State, for its inaccuracies, its obscenities and its failures; I hate to look at it and yet I want to. I want to confuse the simulacrum with reality, because I know the simulacrum isn’t bound by reality’s rules. The film does not depict the classroom where Bill Schroeder and Dave Wirick sat side by side that Monday morning, but as the students assemble on the Commons I begin to look for my father in the crowds. Again and again I’m drawn in by the promise of fiction—the hope that, this time, the invisible storyteller might change the story.

What Americans Know

vlcsnap-2012-06-07-23h16m13s170

 
I finally saw Django Unchained, which I think is probably one of Tarantino’s weaker efforts — down there with the Kill Bill films. It’s certainly well made, and there are lots of interesting moments and ideas, but its handling of the Western genre strikes me as much less knowing, and much less thematized, than the handling of Holocaust films/war films in Inglourious Basterds. As Alyssa says, the handling of gender is pretty rote (certainly less intelligent than in Jackie Brown). And as I think I’ve seen a bunch of people say, the portrayal of Django as exceptional is really problematic, insofar as it flirts with endorsing the phrenological racist narrative that Calvin Candie (DiCaprio) propounds, in which most of the slaves are slaves because they’re not sufficiently bad ass to overthrow their masters. As subdee has mentioned in comments, the film does very much show the constant, horrific violence that propped up the slave system, so it’s possible to critique the idea of black submissiveness from within the film…but still. A little more focus on the pervasiveness of black resistance could have gone at least a little way to balance the Uncle Tom caricature of Stephen, no matter how ably played by Samuel Jackson. As it is, the film’s focus on hyperbolic violence makes it seem like only one man in ten thousand could fight back effectively — when the truth is, I think, that slavery was kept in place by violence of all levels, and so there was resistance at all levels. The film can’t really imagine, for instance, Frederick Douglass physical struggle with his overseer, in which no one died and no one was freed, but white people weren’t quite able to work their will either.

Still, despite its failings, as I said, there were definitely things about the film I liked. One was the shift in the relationship between the German Dr. Schulz (Christoph Waltz) and Django over the course of the film. In the first part of the movie, where Schulz frees Django from slavery and then trains him as a bounty hunter, Shculz is clearly the senior partner — the one who knows the ropes, and the one who better understands, and is more comfortable with, the violence of bounty hunting. Towards the end of the film, though, when the scene shifts to the Southern plantation where Django’s wife is held, it’s Django who leads the way — and Django who understands the reality of life. When Candie has a slave torn apart by dogs, for example, Schulz is horrified and almost blows their cover — but Dango has seen it before, and keeps his cool. As he tells Candie, Schulz “isn’t used to Americans.” Schulz may be white, but he doesn’t understand white violence the way Django does.

The sequence made me remember James Baldwin’s discussion of Lady Sings The blues in his great essay, The Devil Finds Work. The film is loosely based on Billie Holiday’s autobiography. In one scene, supposedly the inspiration for the song Strange Fruit, Holiday (as Baldwin describes it) is on tour in the south when she sees black mourners and a black body hanging from a tree. The Ku Klux Klan appears, and Holiday starts to shriek at them, endangering herself as her white band members attempt to hide her. The band and Billie then escape, but the trauma caused Holiday to take her first shot of heroin.

Baldwin then comments:

The incident is not in the book: for the very good reason, certainly that black people in this country are schooled in adversity long before white people are. Blacks perceive danger far more swiftly, and however odd this may sound, then attempt to protect their white comrade from his white brothes: they know their white comrade’s brothers far better than the comrade does. One fo the necessities of being black, and knowing it, is to accept the hard discipline of learning to avoid useless anger, and needless loss of life: every mother and his mother’s mother’s brother is needed.

Again, where Lady Sings the Blues fails, Django Unchained succeeds. Django’s experiences as a black man mean that he understands white violence in a way that even the bounty hunter does not.

I especially like the almost certainly intentional irony that it is the German who is horrified by Southern racism and Southern atrocities. (Waltz, of course, played a ruthless Nazi in Tarantino’s last film.) It would be possible, I suppose to see this as hypocritical…but Schulz is a sufficiently sympathetic character that I don’t think it quite reads that way. Or if it does, it points, perhaps, to the way that it’s always easier to see the mote in someone else’s eye — always easier to be shocked by someone else’s atrocities than by your own. And, though I doubt this is intentional, it can perhaps also be seen as suggesting a link between America’s treatment of its minorities and Germany’s treatment of its Jews. Hitler’s concentration camps and extermination policies were inspired in part by America’s treatment of the Indians — giving historical weight to Tarantino’s vision of decadent Americans teaching atrocity to innocent Europeans, like some sort of inverse, bloody Henry James novel.

That’s why, for all its flaws, I still like Django Unchained. America just doesn’t make that many films in which America is defined by slavery, and in which being American is defined by slavery. What Django knows about the US isn’t the only thing that is, or can be known about this country — but still, it’s worth keeping it in mind.
_____________
Our entire Django Unchained roundtable is here.

A Minaj for Everyone

A version of this essay first ran at The Chicago Reader.
__________________

minaj_magnum

“I’m a bad bitch,” Nicki Minaj declares on “I’m the Best”, the opening track of her debut album Pink Friday.  It’s a claim she’s made before – and the only difference here is that she doesn’t seem to mean it.  Just a year and a half ago on “Itty Bitty Piggy” from her mix tape Beam Me Up Scotty she came across as a potty-mouthed cackling machine-gun, declaring her badness and her bitchiness in a deranged rhythmic repetitive sing-song that made you believe in both and really not want to meet her in a dark alley.   In comparison, “I’m the Best” sounds like — well, like a rapper looking to go pop by eschewing weirdness for rote R&B backing and rotely inspirational lyrics.  “I’m fighting for the girls who never thought they could win.”  That’s a long, sad trip away from the profane nuttiness of: “If you see a itty bitty piggy in the market/give that bitch a quarter and a car/tell her park it /I don’t fuck with pigs like a salaam alaikum/, I put em in a field, I’ll let Oscar Myer bake em.”

I wish “I’m the Best” was an aberration.  But alas Pink Fridayis filled nigh to bursting with blandness.  You know those swelling, earnest, I-have-overcome bullshit tracks that even decent rappers often put at the end of their CDs where you can conveniently skip over them?  Imagine you had a whole album full of that, and you’ve got a general idea of what Minaj has perpetrated.  The Rihanna collaboration “Fly” sounds like a song called “Fly”; the Natasha Bedingfield collaboration “Last Chance” sounds like a Natasha Bedingfield collaboration.  Just so you won’t blame the R&B songstresses, though, Minaj proves that she can suck all on her loneseome with dross like “Here I Am,” where  she actually says, in all earnestness, “I’m a woman, hear me roar.”   So what’s next — is she going to declare that Lil’ Wayne is the wind beneath her wings?

Quoting Helen Reddy with a straight face on a hip-hop album seems like a good indication that you have lost your way in a fairly spectacular manner.   If you were so inclined, you could see this as a desperate and misguided effort to reach a mainstream audience.   And it clearly is that.

But at the same time, the albums’ rudderlessness seems like part and parcel of Minaj’s  persona.   Switching from Barbie cuteness to rasta declamation to faux British accents to sped up tourettes, Minaj’s flow has always been about spastic incoherence. It’s no accident that perhaps her most acclaimed performance is deliberately and gloriously bipolar. In her verse on Kanye West’s “Monster,” she switches back and forth between a flirtatious little girl coo and a fierce, ranting growl, using the alternation to create an escalating momentum so massive it makes the other rappers on the track, from Jay-Z to Rick Ross, sound positively precious.

As “Monster” makes clear, Minaj has flirted throughout her career with the standard hip hop roles for women: sex kitten and ball breaker.  That flirtation, though, always tends to be oddly, and in some ways refreshingly, half-hearted.  Minaj may don preposterous ass-accentuating outfits in her “Massive Attack” video, or giant castrating claws in Ludacris’ “My Chick Is Bad,” but for the most part it’s remarkable how little she seems to care either about teasing cocks or cutting them off.   Instead, her focus is almost always on, as she invariably says, “bitches.”   One of  the decent tracks on Pink Friday, “Did It On’em,” is fairly typical, as she threatens her peers with explicit machismo.  “All these bitches is my sons…If I had a dick I would pull it out and piss on ‘em.”

The other side of wishing you had a dick to piss on ‘em is, of course, wishing you had a dick to do something else to them.  Minaj is famously semi-closeted. Her most explicit statements of lust on record have almost invariably involved, not men, but other women.  The exception that proves the rule is perhaps Christina Aguilera’s “Woohoo,” where two not-all-that-straight women serenade each other about the pleasures of cunnilingus (“Lick, lick, like a lolly.”) Or, on the other tongue, there’s Usher’s “Little Freak”, and Gucci Mane’s “Girls Kissing Girls,” in both of which Minaj hornily anticipates a (ahem) ménage, offering to hook her brothers up.

Pink Friday doesn’t have anything that hot and heavy — and no wonder.  Minaj may enjoy lasciviously contemplating your “kitty cat” and asking if she can “touch her,” but she’s careful to rhyme the whole thing with “Usher.” Lesbianism is only OK packaged for male consumption. Minaj wants girls . . . but it ain’t no fun if the homeys can’t have none.

In short, Minaj can’t be a sex bomb and a bad ass; she can’t be a castrator and one of the boys; she can’t be dyke and have a career.  She’s got no place to go — which isn’t always a bad thing.  Her see-sawing between identities is surely a large part of her appeal and her genius.  What other female rapper has claimed to be Monica Lewinsky, Barbie, and Freddie from Nightmare on Elm Street?  Minaj ‘s refusal to stay in the hip hop box labeled “women” has allowed her to be silly, unpredictable, and fierce in a way that few rappers of any gender have managed.

But sometimes freedom can be a trap too.  A debut is where you show the world who you are, and for Minaj that’s death.  You can see the problem most clearly, perhaps, on the album’s best track — “Roman’s Revenge” with Eminem.  Swizz Beatz drops the two rappers into a factory full of hammering synths, and Eminem proceeds to tear that shit apart, bouncing from S&M to pissed off Happy Meals to bondage water sports, his brain spewing tangled knots of filthy punchlines so fast that lesser mortals don’t even have time to be knocked on their ass.  “So I tied her arms and legs to the bed, set up the camera and pissed twice on her.  Look!  Two peas in a tripod.”

Like most rappers, Minaj doesn’t have Eminem’s skills, but she doesn’t get blown away either.  From her first stuttering transgender declaration, “I am not Jasmine, I am Aladdin!”  she spits insults and threats, references Eli Manning, and generally sounding lean, mean, and nuts.

The only thing is…well, Eminem is up in there getting a blow job and pissing on women, you know?  And in response Minaj…starts sneering at bitches again.  There’s a general consensus that she’s calling out Lil’ Kim in particular, and fair enough.  But can you imagine Minaj cutting off a guy’s bits and Slim Shady saying, “ayup”, and then going after some random third party?  Indeed, you have to wonder if he’s glancing sideways at Minaj when he snaps (ostensibly again to Kim), “look who’s back again, bitch/keep acting as if you have the same passion I have/yeah right, still hungry, my ass.”

The point isn’t that Minaj has to fight for the rights of women everywhere.  But it Is to suggest that, even at her most feral  there are places she won’t, or can’t, go.  “I feel like people always wanna define me and I don’t wanna be defined,” Minaj said in a Vibe Magazine interview. (in a Vibe Magazine interview).  Unfortunately, on Pink Friday, that fear of being defined seems to have made her unwilling to say anything of interest at all. At some point, if you’re not going to stand for something, you might as well sit down.

Best Online Comics Criticism 2012 – 4th Quarter Nominations

(A call for nominations and submissions.)

This is the final list of nominations for 2012. The judges are now deliberating on the nominations and we should have the list of articles with the highest number of votes by the end of January.

Reiteration: Readers should feel free to submit their nominations in the comments section of this article. Alternatively I can be reached at suattong at gmail dot com. Web editors should feel free to submit work from their own sites. I will screen these recommendations and select those which I feel are the best fit for the list. There will be no automatic inclusions based on these public submissions. Only articles published online for the first time between January 2012 and December 2012 will be considered.

Cartoon-Utopia-cover1

Jenna Brager on Madeleine L’Engle and Hope Larson’s A Wrinkle in Time.

Jacob Canfield – “Subversion, Satire, and Shut the Fuck Up: Deflection and Lazy Thinking in Comics Critcism”.

Brian Cremins – Captain Marvel, The Master, and the Feminine Embrace.

Michael Dirda – “A Duckburg Holiday”. I don’t think Michael Dirda does that many comics reviews so I’m including it here more as a formality. It’s probably more competent than great.

Elisabeth El Refaie – “Visual authentication strategies in autobiographical comics”.

Emma (of Get Me Some Action Comics) on Sex in The Walking Dead.

Glen David Gold – “The Lure of the Oeuthre: On Charles Portis and Flannery O’Connor”.

Nicholas Labarre on Paul Karasik and David Mazzucchelli’s City of Glass.

David Large – Palimpsests and Intertexts: The Unwritten.

Peter Tieryas Liu On Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco’s Days of Destuction, Days of Revolt.

Adrielle Mitchell – “Is Comics Scholarship Ekphrasis?”

Andrei Molotiu – “Abstract Comics and Systems Theory”

Rick Moody – “Fugue for Centrifuges: On Chris Ware’s Building Stories” (Nominated by a jury member)

Jason Thompson on The Heart of Thomas.

Gabriel Winslow-Yost on the works of Chris Ware.

 

The Comics Journal

Craig Fischer – “The Lives of Insects: On Photography and Comics”

Katie Haegele on Ron Regé, Jr.’s The Cartoon Utopia.

Nicole Rudick on Frank Santoro’s Pompeii

A selection of Building Stories Essays by Martha Kuhlman, Katherine Roeder, Daniel Worden, David Ball, Matt Godbey, Margaret Fink, Georgiana Banta, Joanna Davis-Mcelligatt, Shawn Gilmore, Peter Sattler, Paul Karasik, and Craig Fischer.

The individual essays are linked to here for the judges to peruse. Since this process is only selecting individual pieces of comics criticism, the roundtable as a whole is not eligible for consideration.

 

Also see:

First Quarter Nominations

Second Quarter Nominations

Third Quarter Nominations