Re: interdisciplinarity

[Ralph Dumain <rdumain@xxxxxxx>]

At 11:53 AM 6/5/99 -0700, Matthew Levy wrote:
>Denzel may have some impressive screen presence, but why is he
>always showing up in movies that have such reactionary racial
>politics?

I don't see enough Hollywood movies with Denzel or anybody else to be able
to track these things.  I think Denzel works very well as a cerebral type,
whereas Wesley Snipes is more physical, but this is just a general
observation, which shows you hpow little I know..

>seems to me he's let himself get commodified into an archetype.
>or maybe its just that hollywood is so full of this shit and their
>are so few black actors
>of his standing that it seems to have something to do with him ...

I can't speak on Denzel and on many others, but I think it's almost
impossible for a black superstar to avoid being commmodified into an
archetype and being degraded in the process.  I suspect a good deal of
time, given the upwardly mobile American mentality and the cult of fame,
that the persons in question are not even aware of what is happening to
them.  I also wonder how much of it is intentional on the part of the blue
suits and big cigars.  I had an uneasy feeling about some of the Richard
Pryor films a couple of decades ago.  It is horrifyingly obvious how Whoopi
Goldberg has been typed and marketed ever since she began to star in comic
films.  Funny I should think of comedians first, but come to think of it,
comedy is a more subtle problem, epistemically very complex.  Don't get me
started on black sitcoms.

>I would say that anyone who reads critical social thought
>and tries to apply it to actual life, outside of the academy, is
>an organic intellectual.

You do?  Odd choice of terminology.

>But all this still amounts to a
>hierarchy for them ... everything is about proving and improving
>one's place on a ladder of meritocratic dessert... And the notion
>of thus having
>any connections beyond one's social group, or of being willing to
>sacrifice advantage in any sphere in order to build up others, is
>rare ...

Well, you asked me about the contradictions I must face, and this is one
none of us can get out of without dropping out, as they used to say, which
is no longer even an option.  And the economic situation is much worse than
it was in the halcyon days of postwar prosperity.  However, when you look
at the path so many people took
and I imagine still take, is not to sacrifice all considerations to the
most lucrative ambition but to find a comfortable niche where one can live
with reasonable comfort and not do anyone any harm and maybe if one is
ambitious do good: become civil servants, join the "helping" professions,
become scientists, programmers, etc. (hopefully not doing any harm).
However, the problem of avoiding becoming rigidified down the lines of the
class/occupational structure in a land in which class lines are constantly
being blurred but everyone's first question is: "what do you do?" is a
difficult one.  One often finds oneslef a fish out of water in any situation.

>see the movie Gattaca?

I wish I could remember my analysis of GATTACA.  I saw it with a friend who
tends to get puzzled under the pretext of unfamiliarity with SF.  When I
blurted out, "what a reactionary piece of shit!" when the film ended, he
kept the ball rolling, and we dissected the whole thing.  But I can't
remember anything!

>at the end this is supposed to represent a triumph of the human
>spirit.  it made me ill.

Good for you!

As for bildung, the difference between life and the media is that in the
media a solution to all problems is always touted as an individual solution
that reconciles all discrepancies, whereas in real life it's just how we
get by.

There is only one flaw with GOOD WILL HUNTING, and it's in the quasi-happy
ending.  The rare genius of the film is that the subject is knowledge and
class division--it is the autodidact's movie par excellence, I suppose the
best one ever made in this country.  But after rejecting all the lucrative
job offers he gets, esp. the one from the NSA where Will trashes the entire
imperialist-capitalist system in a few rapidfire hilarious sentences, Will
takes the advice of one of his working class buddies and takes another job
offer (yes or no?) and more importantly, runs off to get the girl.  This is
the part of the film, and the only one in an otherwise nearly flawless
scenario, that kowtows to the conservative American mentality.  But the
ending is not a solution of the problem, not even for Will and the place of
his brilliant intellect in relation to society as a whole, let alone to or
for his buddies or anybody else.  If you're not afraid that your 10-year
daughter might ask you "what's a blow job?", it's a great film to take kids
to see and then discuss, to show them what the capitalist esp. American
class system does to people.

Similarly, THE TRUMAN SHOW criticizes nearly the whole system, not only the
power of the media, but more radically, satirizes US as its willing
accomplices!  The level of reflexivity in this film is stunning.  Both the
captivity and the liberation of TRUMAN is applauded by couch potatoes
everywhere.  Truman is freed and everyone cheers for him and goes back to
unfree life as ususal and then Truman is forgotten and channel-surfing
resumes.  This is a total indictment.  OK, it's not perfect, but where's
the decisive flaw?  That the workers, when ordered to try to kill Truman,
don't rebel and refuse to carry out orders.  Not even a good old fashioned
work stoppage.  How American can you get?