turistas go home!

[intertribal]

The title is my reaction to Indiana Jones: The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  The above is also my reaction to every Indiana Jones movie, so I guess if you like Indiana Jones, you'll like it.

Let me just say though, that as someone who watched 9 FUCKING seasons of the X-Files, this sanitized, Americanized, and abridged version in 2 1/2 hours and M&Ms packaging just feels like a smack in the fucking face.

+ : every time Indiana Jones fails at something. 
- : every time Indiana Jones succeeds at something.
best character: crazy professor man + mutt
worst character: marion ravenwood + indiana jones
best impossibility: Indiana Jones gets pulled out of a sand trap by holding onto a snake that is somehow able to hold his entire weight!
worst impossibility: Indiana Jones survives a nuclear explosion by hiding in a refrigerator and doesn't die of cancer in three weeks!

Comments

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I hate a lot of things. In fact, I hate everything. I'm a hate-monger, you know me. Because every time I use the word hate I actually mean some kind of visceral, absolutist hatred.

Jesus christ. Am I accusing you of anything? No! If anything I'm venting about my mother's attitude, and I've already said that.

I think it reinforces those pre-existing attitudes and stereotypes, and a lot of those stereotypes anger me. Is it going to make everybody who sees it think people in the Amazon are moronic poison-dart throwers? No. But for some people who are already ready to accept certain stereotypes, it just makes it all the easier to keep on believing what they believe, and I don't think a country like the U.S. needs any help in that department. Conservative politicians quote 24 nowadays. They know it's going to resonate and make them look cool.

And i don't think Indiana Jones is far enough away from what looks like a modern, real world to be given the same leniency as most fantasy. And if it mocked itself - if it really actually mocked itself - then that would be a different story. But it doesn't. Even Rambo makes more fun of itself than Indiana Jones. But you know, that's the same reason I wasn't impressed with Iron Man. It was just proud of its machismo and offered no room for anyone to say, wait, I don't like this, precisely because it is so aligned with what popular culture conceives as cool. And the same with Narnia and its religious overtones - no room for criticism because to do so is to fight the basic plot of Christianity. That's what it means to be part of the hegemonic culture. Criticism becomes very difficult. I'm not saying that you in particular are making criticism difficult, I'm just noting how these movies set themselves up, through plot and styling and dialogue, so that you can't argue with them and their characters are perfect.

Of course there are parts of the movie that are entertaining and funny. It says something that the most entertaining parts of the movie were the parts where Indiana Jones wasn't perfect. The adventure bits were mostly rehashed from earlier movies and at any rate, hardly surprising. It's not good when the audience solves the riddle before the characters do.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

...sigh. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to accuse you of being a hate-monger, but if that's what it sounds like to you, okay, I take it back.

Frankly, I'd say the same think about any politician, including Barack Obama...especially the more popular ones, I suppose. But in saying that, I'm not necessarily trying to lay blame on him--it's a problem with how our (televised) political campaigning system works, and possibly more than that.

I don't know how much it goes to reinforce them, but it certain doesn't contradict them...and what does tends to be ridiculed, marginalized, or simply not accepted.

I'm not sure what you mean about there not being room for criticism of Narnia and Indiana Jones, although I do get the thing about not mocking itself. I guess I'd say (and maybe this is my own way of saying the same thing) that it makes criticism have to come from an essentially reactive standpoint, from someone pointing a finger at it and calling it wrong. And yes, that is what it means to be part of the hegemonic culture.

But I have just as much of a problem with that sort of criticism as I do with the original prejudices. Which is what I meant to say. It sets up a system in which you have to divide yourself, you have to make an "us" (the marginalized viewpoint) and "them" (the hegemonic one) that invariably get moralized, to even be able to argue for something different. That, in my view, is what the worst part of it is. I suppose the only way for it not to be that way is to change the structure of the culture/society itself as a whole, because only then can you change what it is that's making the hegemonic viewpoint hegemonic. Not that societies are independent structures that can be separated out and counted.

I haven't seen the new movie, nor have I seen the old ones in a very long time. The rehashing seems pretty lame, though. Actually, I didn't know there was a new one till the other day when Tara pointed this out on her cereal box, and it weirded me out, 'cause Harrison Ford is like ancient now.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

and of course if it weren't the hegemonic viewpoint, and someone made the Indiana Jones movie, it wouldn't be accepted in the same way, or really have much influence except for those who wanted to criticize, or be alternative, or whatever...

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Right, which is part of the reason I don't think Spielberg is a great director. I think he's really great at tapping into the hegemonic current and making a movie that just plays to it. So sometimes I like his movies and often times I don't. But he's never controversial, he never breaks new ground (except technically), and he never shifts anybody's paradigms. However he's extremely influential because he's very good at tapping into the hegemonic viewpoint, making loads of money, and getting rave reviews by the biggest, most mainstream critics. Then other movies see how successful he is and follow suit. That's all his influence is.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I'm saying...not much really shifts anybody's paradigms. Stuff that doesn't play to the mainstream current ends up being for 'niche' audiences. But yeah, I suppose his influence on other movie-makers only makes it worse.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

(I don't mean that actually changing your mind isn't possible, but the for the majority of audiences, it doesn't happen, and i'm not sure if movies are the best format for it to happen anyway...)

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

True, but that doesn't mean we can't try, and if anyone changes their minds, that's still something.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

the easiest way to do it would be to actually change the underlying power structure. just sayin'.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

No, it wouldn't be the easiest way. You've said yourself MANY TIMES that it's near impossible to do it that way.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

well, "easiest" in the sense of "most likely to actually work." actually easy to accomplish? certainly not.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

but that's more like individual change than real social change. "i want more!"

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I agree that it creates an us vs. them (but doesn't all categorization create that to some extent?) but I guess in my view that's not what the worst part of it is. I have no idea, none, what anyone who is not part of the hegemonic culture, or for that matter people who just don't like the freaking movie, is supposed to do when they can't voice criticism without it being thrown back in their face as unwarranted or caused by their own problems/insecurities, which is what I mean by their being no room for dissent in certain movies.

I agree that criticism should ideally not be built around us vs. them language. It should be like David Broder, completely calm and level-headed. But I'm responding emotionally here.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if categorization has to create that...I think it happens more when that categorization is based on a power dynamic/hierarchy. I suppose there can be an "other" without that, but that's not the same as us vs them.

In my view it's the worst part because it's what makes all criticism ineffectual. Thereby the criticism itself is part of the process of making itself ineffectual. It's really quite sad.

I have no idea who David Broder is, but I s'pose my opinion is similar to that. For me, though, it's not a matter so much of us vs. them language, though, as us vs. them social positions and identities. Whether the criticism is emotional or level-headed, so long as it's laying blame, or even just so long as it's creating social difference, it's doing the same work, and that difference, in a hierarchical structure, just pushes you further down.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I guess we're always going to disagree on this point, because I really could not disagree more.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Well, it's just like, for instance, feminists who try to assert their identities as women, be proud of their bodies and femininity, and criticize men. Makes me want to say, "Yeah, go you, reclaim that objectification," most of the time. Not to mention the whole idea of criticizing men is ridiculous, as if they are demons to be conquered. Anything here that's just polarizing the two groups more is keeping the system of patriarchy intact. Criticism is possible, it just can't be directed at the dominant group, because hegemony is systemic, there isn't a good side and a bad side, "men" and "women" are not homogenous groups, they do not have essences--those come from the socially created categories, and everyone has a right to define themselves. I know they, or at least the more intelligent of them, are going against older feminists' tendency to become equals be being more like men, but they're really doing a disservice to feminism.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I hope we're just misunderstanding each other about what sort of criticism we're talking about. Because I do think it's possible for criticism to be productive, even though I see much of it as negative and unproductive (only when it serves to harden divisions, further antagonism, moralize, things along those lines--that includes creating identities as members of social groups (vs. as individuals), e.g. black pride). And I do think there's an objective truth to the matter, whether or not either of us is supporting a position that corresponds to it.

I admit I'm taking a lot from Nietzsche and Bourdieu and Judith Butler and various other authors and Steve...so it'll probably take a lot to convince me otherwise.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

sorry 'bout the deleted comment. i fucked up a carrot-thingy somewhere. I think i forgot to add that I don't claim to be accurately representing the views of the aforementioned authors when I rewrote it.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

not that it has to be that over-intellectualized. i could cite a punk song instead (not that punks don't read). which is i guess where steve comes in. *wince*

i do realize i didn't represent myself very well before, as saying that's true of "all criticism" is blatantly false, and I contradicted myself, so if this is a misunderstanding, I take a good share of the blame. sorry.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I don't think that it's as unproductive as you like to think. I do agree that separating from everyone else is counterproductive and that's why I don't think schools should allow religious or ethnic groups. And I do believe in changing the system from within, which is why I want to work in government instead of being an activist. But I can tolerate doing that and not die of frustration because I can be part of the hegemonic structure as well as the subaltern structure. There's a lot of people I know who would not be able to stand it and just go off to the corner to fume and hate the hegemons. And saying, oh, boo you, what the hell is that going to accomplish? to them reminds me of military generals telling student protesters, "why don't you do something constructive instead of just yelling at us, huh? why don't you try to help instead of making it worse, wink wink nudge nudge?" And yeah, I think we're working with different time spans and contexts.

I have no authors backing me, but I will admit that I come from a lot of anger, especially regarding race and wealth. Just reading what you write makes it difficult to breathe/not scream, so I'll have to stop now. Sorry, I'm an idealistic hick. But since it'll take a lot to convince you lot otherwise, I'm not going to try.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

And I do believe in changing the system from within, which is why I want to work in government instead of being an activist.

I'm not sure I'm arguing against this.

And saying, oh, boo you, what the hell is that going to accomplish? to them reminds me of military generals telling student protesters, "why don't you do something constructive instead of just yelling at us, huh? why don't you try to help instead of making it worse, wink wink nudge nudge?"

I also don't think this has anything to do with what I'm saying. I'm not arguing for anyone to help military generals, for chrissake.

I have no authors backing me, but I will admit that I come from a lot of anger, especially regarding race and wealth. Just reading what you write makes it difficult to breathe/not scream, so I'll have to stop now. Sorry, I'm an idealistic hick. But since it'll take a lot to convince you lot otherwise, I'm not going to try.

In other words, a lot of resentment. I really think that anger will only hurt you in the end, even if you manage to do amazing things despite it. I just want people to be able to be proud of themselves without having to define themselves against anyone else, to love one another, to start treating each other like human beings and not essentially different types. To not have to join the dominant people to be equal, but not give into the false illusion of "separate but equal" either, to be able to accept individual difference, and above all for one group not to have hegemonic power over the others. It's tricky, and it's fucking hard, but I really think it's the best way, maybe even the only way, to create real change for the better.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

In fact, if I wanted to be a bitch, I could say that you're the one who's arguing for the student protesters to help military generals because you're the one who thinks you have to change the system from inside it. But I really don't think that's a fair characterization of either of our positions, and we're both struggling to deal with a situation where you have to have power to create change but having power means being part of the system you want to change. So, I'm not accusing you of that, and I would appreciate it if you had the same respect for me.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that sounds like a great world. How do we get there? Specifically, how do we get there? Your solution has to be workable and livable. I don't think that if you fail to get 100 you get 0 with this kind of thing, because things have improved, slowly, in a lot of places. Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't better and I think that's something we fundamentally disagree upon. I don't aim for perfect because I don't think perfect is possible.

Yup, I'm one of those resentful stupid types driven by the calculus of emotion. And you know, I'm proud of that. And you know what's funny? I only get this angry when I'm arguing about it. I'm far more angered by being made to feel like a dumbass by you than by Indiana Jones. I make snarky comments about the media but I'm never enraged by it - it doesn't actually get to me. Does that mean I'm somehow angry on the inside? I'm sure it does. I'm sure there's an expert you could call to testify to that. I'm full of anger and hate, I'm just a toxic little ball of spite.

I'll work on that!

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Also, I'm an idealist too. Very much so.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

because otherwise, all that happens is the government says, "Okay, you're right, now we'll punish people for being mean to you," and then people think, "Okay, it's all taken care of. We don't have to worry about discrimination now because we have laws against that." But it's still there, and it only becomes more hidden and harder to bring out in the open and deal with, so long, especially, as race is correlated with socioeconomic class/the means to real power and influence.

They say language is the only place left where it's politically correct to discriminate--because then it's not that "you're not white/stereotypically American enough", it's that "you don't speak Standard." People get denied jobs because they don't speak Standard, even though it's clear that English-speakers can understand them. They don't present a good "image", therefore they don't sell, so the businesses don't take responsibility--they say it's just a business decision. And I suppose that's true. The audience doesn't want to see their newscaster "talking black" either. Because all that says is "black" (which, here, is clearly a stereotype for lower class, which is shown whenever a black person "talks proper" and is therefore tolerated, because you don't talk that way without education/money), whereas the other says "unmarked objective news."

And I swear to god, you don't need hate speech and violence to keep a group down, all you need is to exclude them from equal opportunities, exclude them from everything the dominant group has, just tolerate them, by keeping them as the marked group, where everything they do is tainted with their status, where they don't have the freedom to be taken as equally rational and equally objective, while the middle class white people get to be unmarked, get to be the voice of everyone, the generic human, and things will stay more or less the same. That unmarked, that one group being the voice of everyone, is what hegemony is. And identifying yourself as what it already draws itself in contrast to (any marked group), plays into the way it creates its power. It will tolerate those marked groups the whole time it oppresses them.

I should probably be clear from this that I think there are a number of things that can, that have to, change for this to improve. One is related to class, and that's the hardest one. Actually, no, the hardest one might be the part that's related to nation-states.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

also, i like your icon, btw. i took it too, but i saw you beat me to it, so i haven't used it...