Last month I was happily ensconced in the winter wonderland that is Caldera Center for the Arts, a summer camp nestled in the Cascades that in the winter and spring, houses adult artists for month long residencies. The artists can work in relative solitude and isolation to either focus on their craft, finish a project, or just rejuvenate, away from their day-to-day lives. It’s heaven. And a complete gift to be here.
Our first week here, the other 3 residents and I were giddy to watch a film in the main lodge projected on a big screen. It was like having our own private screening room – complete with roaring fire place. About midway through Slum Dog Millionaire– I found that my stomach was getting tight, and I found myself floating on a wave of disgust. It was a strong body-based reaction – to the point where I asked Noelle – “How much longer will this movie take?” My reaction was surprising to me – and I think it was surprising to the other residents and I almost felt ashamed to be so opinionated about a movie so many found endearing and inspiring. It kept coming up over the course of the month and I kept trying to figure out what I found so “offensive.”
I don’t think I found SDM “offensive.” I think what happened was that I was reacting viscerally to underlying precepts in the film that I feel are toxic to society – toxic to culture – and toxic to genuine understandings of class, race, gender, poverty, inter-personal relationships, among other things. Kind of a big reaction – and I wanted to be sure that there wasn’t some underlying prejudice in me that colored my view of the film. But after careful consideration – I don’t think so.
I believe that when people applaud and AWARD the on-the-surface romanticism in the movie – they are unconsciously applauding the underlying precepts without holding those precepts up to any rigorous analysis. Audiences are being consoled – and in being consoled there is no progress or movement away from the causes of conflict and injustice in the world. Instead, we stay mired/ entrenched in the unconscious insecurities that keep us isolated as individuals; isolated in socio-economic clans; and unable and unwilling to innovate ourselves out of our collective destructive patterns that slowly erode our chances for peace, and environmental survival on this planet.
Gosh – that’s a tall complaint for a director of a film to answer to. But I know in my body that my feelings are important. It’s really very simple: issues of race, class, and gender impact economies – economies impact environmental degradation. Environmental degradation or recovery will determine whether or not we survive as species on planet Earth. So what does this have to do with entertainment? We live in serious times. We cannot afford to be consoled or distracted by frivolous art. (Or as Marcuse would call it “ Mass Art”.)
Global celebration of a film that reinforces erroneous assumptions about global realities don’t serve us AT ALL. In fact, I believe with my whole body that these kinds of films HURT us. Look closely at just a few of the precepts the movie unconsciously posits:
• a happy ending is when ONE boy rises above poverty and corruption because he was “good” and DESTINED, given his life’s journey, to win millions of dollars
o Are some people really pre-destined to socio-economic heaven – while others stay in hell?
• If ONE boy can be clever and good enough to rise above his circumstances – the rest of the people in that caste have an example to emulate/ celebrate
o implicit in this assumption is that nothing can be or need be done to truly address the issues of inequality in the first place
• “true” love survives years of hardship and separation. People do not and need not evolve past their childhood notions of affection and love
o implicit in this assumption is that when us real life people fall out of love or evolve into new kinds of loves/ families we are somehow failing the notion of “true” love. It is also implicit in this assumption that the object/ woman of some man’s affection must return those feelings or they are failing true love as well.
• even if a girl is prostituted and abused, when her “true” love comes to save her – all will be well
• Given the right character, a girl who is prostituted and physically abused FOR YEARS could still grow up to be a drop-dead gorgeous woman capable of returning the kind of love she had been denied throughout the entirety of her DEVELOPMENTAL years.
• A boy can only get the girl if he has or makes a lot of money
• industrious children in poverty can get by with an exciting life duping stupid first world tourists
o Any chance these scenes serve to assuage first world guilt for benefiting from historical colonialism?
These bullet points are just a brief study of my thoughts – and are no way complete and ripe arguments – but I throw them out to encourage a deeper look at what the movie is implicitly saying to its audience, unconsciously or not. And when we applaud the romantic cover-story – “boy suffers, boy overcomes, boy gets girl”— that we are all inclined to applaud, we never-the-less are subconsciously applauding the implicit assumptions/ messages about race, class, gender, economy that the film contextualizes its narrative within. I think that’s why I felt my reaction so physically– and had to examine those feelings closely to understand why.
I’m starting to understand that watching a film isn’t only an intellectual exercise. It impacts our physical/ emotional sensory body. We get adrenaline rushes, dopamine hits, etc. etc. When we applaud a film its messages/ ideas/ images are imprinted in our nervous system. There’s a lot of writing going on right now about the brain, body, and perception – that I’m really curious about – that probably has some insights to this argument. For now, I’m just grateful that films don’t yet have “smell tracks.”
I don’t think Slum Dog is life-affirming, consciousness-raising, or provocative in any way, shape, or form. I think it callously uses romanticized exotic images of race, poverty, and violence to manipulate its audience into being grateful when the protagonist is finally given a reward – a reward BEYOND what most of us enjoy. Implicit in the ending is the suggestion that we should all AS INDIVIDUALS primarily desire that level of reward rather than COLLECTIVELY desire an end to systemic poverty, misogyny, and racism. The movie can’t deal maturely or effectively with the serious issues it highlights to its audience— so it tosses us a bone instead – the vicarious and dubious joy of winning millions of dollars/ rupes. It’s a cheap trick.
Seriously, given our economic woes is this REALLY what we all want: excessive wealth? How has that drive served us collectively? And come on – can we all be millionaires? Kinda doesn’t work like that.
I don’t expect a film to provide the solution to the world’s problems. I also don’t expect a film to mirror my politics. But I do expect an artist to serve a subject with integrity. That didn’t happen in Slum Dog Millionaire and it made me physically ill to watch it, and very angry. I hate that movie in my toes.
For films that had the opposite effect on this very sensitive viewer see:
• Born into Brothels, a documentary film about a photographer who goes to India to teach children photography
• Children of Heaven, An Iranian film about a young brother and sister who after an unfortunate series of events, must share the same pair of tennis shoes
• Monsoon Wedding
• Water
A whole essay could be written about the exportation of the American Dream eg. “Who wants to be a millionaire” to “under developed / third world” societies – I’m sure there are many dissertations that explore this plot point in the most recent chapters of colonialism, the evolution of a global economy, and the global media’s role in that process….
Back at home, filmmakers and TV producers in the U.S. are still lucratively mining our deep primal need for riches and fame. About two years ago at the suggestion of two people who I love, and whose opinions I respected, I rented Hustle and Flow. My feelings were very similar to my recent experience with Slum Dog Millionaire. I found H&F to be predictable as an artwork, and the kind of marketing vehicle one would expect MTV to crank out in order to promote their business interests. (For the purposes of my essay I’m assuming MTV’s business interests are to sell advertising space and catch the eyeballs of those who idolize celebrity and images of tits and ass.) I also found Hustle and Flow to be morally bankrupt.
The merits of the movie as I saw them:
• there was some beautiful acting
• the film was nicely shot/ stylized.
• the music was groovy, if one could ignore the lyrics
Why it sucked:
The plot was typical: man from nothing aspires to something. Quintessential promotion of the American Dream/ Myth. YAWN. What was that true-story horse racing movie that came out a few years ago Sea Biscuit? – MUCH more exciting.
In H& F I’m expected to cheer for the protagonist, Djay, even though he’s a pimp. Newsflash people: pimps are assholes, and this character was an asshole. I don’t think it was so great that his “voice was heard.” His voice spoke of nothing that would elevate his community or add an iota of truth and inspiration to a social dialog. (Although the writers tried to imbue him with a notion of philosophy, I didn't fall for it.)
Not all cultural products have to have a moral, or contribute something new and inspiring to a social conversation, but its one of the ways art moves me. I just don’t gravitate to music or film that uncritically presents violence against women, sexism, and that expects me to care about how hard life is for a pimp.
Newsflash: Pimps are lying, violent men who manipulate and exploit disempowered women until they have no use for them. If you doubt this for a second watch the documentary American Pimp, or research the testimony of women who are working to legalize prostitution. The movement to legalize prostitution seeks to prevent this exploitation by these assholes and help prostitutes get health care, get PAID for their labor as sex workers, and enjoy some say over their own working conditions. Pimps don’t EVER pay prostitutes. They give them drugs, clothes, food, and a place to live. Most prostitutes are “in love” with these men, even though they use and physically abuse them. These men are useless, and if evil exists, they are evil in the most banal of ways. (Not to go all holy-roller on you.)
So, let’s imagine that the filmmakers wanted to challenge us with this anti-hero and show us the dark humanity of his experience. I would argue that instead of accomplishing this they romanticized him in order to make $ and that anyone who opted to cheer for him has been bamboozled. While the film described the pimp lifestyle to a certain extent – and gave us glimpses into his violence, addiction, and his manipulative prowess, (forcing you to be uncomfortable) – the viewer was still expected to cheer for him, and the hos who loved him. (All the while the viewer is instructed to boo the hos who didn’t.)
Also – I just generally hate it when a movie tells me how I should feel. Don’t you?
Wasn’t it sweet that pregnant ho stood by her man and bought him a lava lamp, and some chain? A) She’d never have her own money to do that with. And B) NO. ITS NOT SWEET THAT SHE STOOD BY HER MAN. He’s an asshole who’d been exploiting her. I would have cheered if she'd left him, and had him arrested.
The filmmakers show us Djay’s true colors when he evicts Lexus. (Let’s pause for a second on the choice to name a woman character after a car.) He sends her and her baby out into the cold because she expressed her anger and challenged his power. Nice guy. But she got what was coming to her because she was a bitch and a bad mother. I especially appreciated the scene where she hears his music in her exile and shows remorse for doubting him. “Had I only neglected my own feelings I’d get to be that close to greatness” is the implicit message in that scene. I wholeheartedly reject that message.
Then there is the good white wife, who while cooks and cleans for her husband, is prohibiting him from reaching his full potential, by her insistence on suburban values. And plus that - she talks too much. I’m so glad she came around to “being a bottom” and made sandwiches to support the collaboration, and got over her prejudice against pimps and hos. NOT.
Finally, Djay rises to power after beating the crap out of the man currently in power because Skinny Black bruises his ego by putting Djay's tape in the toilet. While in jail his smartest ho launches a PR campaign on his behalf because he inspired Nola’s leadership. HOW GULLIBLE DO YOU THINK I AM, Mr. Director? Okay, fine I guess this is the true American dream:
For men: Rise to power by exploiting the less powerful and beating the opposition.
For women: Get excited and feel privileged if you can contribute to and/ or hover next to this greatness.
Moral of the story: Djay got what he wanted and he didn’t have to evolve at all. And audience members got to vicariously cheer him on without questioning anything too closely.
According to the film, the audience should hate Skinny Black for his success and being a sell out! But why? It’s clear Skinny knew that Djay was trying to use and manipulate him for his own advancement. So why should the audience feel that he is under an obligation to hear the tape? Throwing it into toilet is a little extreme, (and stupid) but does that merit a beating? Not at all. Yet, while I was watching – I felt for our protagonist – and that made me feel icky. Watching a movie that seduces me into compromising my own moral integrity is really what bugs me the most after watching this CRAP. Don’t forget to buy the soundtrack.
Little Miss Sunshine –bizarre as it sounds –has a lot in common with Hustle and Flow. But to this viewer, LMS is a far superior piece of work. It deals with the same issues: What constitutes success? What is the American Dream? It taps into the American fear of “the loser.” And it takes on sexism and women’s body issues is a very subtle and entertaining way. The film uses a child who is innocent of these mores and illuminates how bizarre they are. (Its OK to eat ice cream, even beauty queens do it.) At the end of the movie no one is famous, but all the characters have evolved in a believable way.
What I like about Little Miss Sunshine is that it makes fun of sexism, without being pedantic. Grandpa’s lust for sex is human, funny, and appropriate. His porn is a source of humor. It makes the father character uncomfortable, but gets him out of a ticket. American values are poked fun of when the not-sexy girl performs a mock striptease – in front of an outraged audience who are promoting their own style of sexism vis a vis the child beauty contest. While we are all horrified and embarrassed on some level, Abby's striptease reminds us all how NOT sexy we feel a lot of the time. During her performance we can love Abby, and laugh at ourselves. Abby’s inability to be the child beauty queen makes us hurt - but her irreverence and innocence - reinforces us AGAINST the inclination to aspire to such shallow representations of beauty and success. Instead, the film reinforces the healing power of a flawed, and imperfect family. That’s kinda like life, no? Doesn’t that feel true?
In Hustle and Flow, audiences can look down on the sex workers, objectify the sex workers, but we never have to identify with them. (If we do identify with them, as Lacan might argue, we can’t be a complicated holistic person, we have to be the one-dimensional character – in this case - either a bitch or a disempowered cheerleader.)
Another striking similarity of these films in terms of theme, was the conflict between the wives in both movies. In both cases, they are challenged to “stand by their men” – in LMS - her man really needs to get a job after his book deal goes south. In HnF – the white husband has a decent job and can support their lifestyle but he can make it BIG by taking a chance on this pimp. Will she support him? Can she think that BIG? The movie clearly defines what a “bad wife” is – and she comes around to being a “good wife.”
The wife/ mother in LMS – starts out supportive and then gets realistic. She also spends time in the movie protecting her children from the father’s fanatical lust for success. In LMS the wife is a true partner. She supports her husband, and calls him on his bullshit. In HnF, the women rarely challenge Djay in any significant way, and are gushingly grateful to sing back up, do PR, or suck cock for his livelihood. Really? Really? Some director, producer, and a host of other cogs in the wheel thought that was OKAY with audiences? That reality makes me very, very sad.
Little Miss Sunshine encourages us to question what success means to us as individuals and collectively. Hustle and Flow tells us that there are celebrities and there are losers. Its slogan should be “Buy into the myth of the American Dream!” - emphasis on the "buy" ing.
On a personal note –the “American dream” is not something I dismiss out of hand. My family lineage includes people who dealt with racism and poverty. And incidentally my immigrant great grandfather and his brother, basically orphaned and still children, hustled their way across the States riding in the box car of a train. After hard work, and the benefits of certain historical circumstances, they were able to provide a better life for their subsequent families, (children who did indeed become millionaires.) I am well aware that I am a direct beneficiary of the “American Dream”. That said, I don’t believe we live in a historical moment where rugged individualism is going to solve our global problems, and I think we are challenged to revise what the “American dream” means to our global community. Our filmmakers have an opportunity to contribute to that vision. I would like to see them take leadership, and it disappoints me when they don’t.
So in my not so humble opinion, Hustle and Flow and Slum Dog Millionaire gets two thumbs, eight fingers, 2 big toes, and 8 little toes DOWN. And Little Miss Sunshine ROCKS!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
