The Century of the Self: Why Hollywood Just Doesn't Make 'em like They Used To

 

If you are like me and regularly make your movie selections based on film reviews, then you should believe the critical hype surrounding The Master. The newest offering from director Paul Thomas Anderson, starring Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix is easily the best film I have seen all year. And, in a year filled with unoriginal superhero movies, dumb comedies and recycled ideas in the form of prequels, sequels and remakes, The Master stands out as an original, sophisticated piece of filmmaking.

The film centers on the strange, pseudo-sexual relationship between Phoenix’s Freddie Quell and Hoffman’s Lancaster Dodd during the early 1950s. Dodd is an enigmatic writer and philosopher who leads a new age, quasi-religious group called The Cause. After his first psycho-analytic session with Dodd, Freddie falls under The Cause’s hypnotic spell.

The film mines thorny, complex issues such as the allure of cults, the power of mass persuasion, and our almost primal need to place our faith in charismatic demigods.

Like Anderson’s previous films—There Will Be Blood, Punch-Drunk Love, Boogie Nights—The Master is deep, complex and downright stubborn in its refusal to spell everything out for audiences. It utilizes an eerie film score (courtesy of Radiohead’s Johnny Greenwood), and uncomfortably prolonged close-up shots bound to frustrate viewers that are used to more conventional fare. Scott Tobias, writing for the A.V. Club, calls The Master, “a feisty, contentious, deliberately misshapen film, designed to challenge and frustrate audiences looking for a clean resolution” (09/13/2012).

Much as I love going to the movies, it has admittedly been a long time since a film has captivated and resonated with me as much as The Master. Most contemporary Hollywood films are mass-produced concoctions designed solely to please and pacify viewers. Rare is the movie that entertains and enlightens.

This is, of course, nothing new. Hollywood has long been first and foremost about profits, relegating innovative, intelligent films to independent studios and niche markets. Perhaps that is why this year’s Oscar-dominator, The Artist created such a critical stir. Its clever use of silent-film nostalgia and clear allusions to Charlie Chaplin reminded us of the cinematic joys of going to the movies in the first place.

I personally blame George Lucas—and, to a lesser extent, Steven Spielberg—for ruining the movies. Star Wars all but created the modern summer blockbuster, an effects-laden, sensational “event” film that is, in the words of New York critic David Edelstein, “infinitely merchandisable.”

Thanks to Star Wars, nearly every movie is now evaluated on how many millions of dollars it grosses in its opening weekend, rather than its cinematic qualities. Once the market became the ultimate barometer for cinematic success, all artistic considerations became after-thoughts. (I now brace myself for the flood of angry emails from Lucas worshipping nerds worldwide.)

All of popular-culture—the movies we see, the music we listen to, and the television shows we watch—is produced, distributed and marketed by corporations. These forms of entertainment exist entirely to make a profit or, in the case of TV, to expose us to commercial advertisements. Art in the form of theater, film, music and literature has become another commodity.

What many Americans do not realize, is that cultural critics, academics and those on the left did not always embrace what is now known as “pop-culture” as readily as they do today. In fact, during the post-WWII years, many on the left were highly disturbed by what they saw as the formation of a permanent consumer industry.

This fear is best captured in Frankfurt school scholars, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s 1944 essay, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. As part of a group of expatriate academics who had fled to America from Nazi Germany, the so-called “Frankfurt” professors were dismayed to find the very same forms of political and cultural repression they had just escaped already manifesting themselves in the U.S.  

The then-nascent elements of mass culture (radio, film, magazines and by 1950, television) according to Adorno and Horkheimer, serve to manipulate and distract citizens from pertinent social matters. Furthermore, the authors feared the standardized genres of movies, pop-music and the like dissuaded critical thinking, erased individuality, and ensured citizens were fully acculturated into capitalist ideology.

“Culture has always contributed to the subduing of revolutionary as well as of barbaric instincts,” the authors write.

Industrial culture does something more. It inculcates the conditions on which implacable life is allowed to be lived at all. Individuals must use their general satiety as a motive for abandoning themselves to the collective power of which they are sated.

They add, “Existence in late capitalism is a permanent rite of initiation. Everyone must show that they identify wholeheartedly with the power which beats them.”

Fast-forward to the twenty-first century, a time when Americans are more likely to know the names of the most recent American Idol contestants than their state’s congressional representatives. A recent survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that only about 57percent of Americans can name Paul Ryan as the Republican vice-presidential candidate.

Like Freddie Quell, we have become enraptured in the cult of the self. And all of our forms of entertainment further reinforce our solitary role as perpetual consumers. Like Quell, we want to believe there is more to life. We need something or someone to follow.

My advice is to see The Master and attempt to decode its mysteries yourself. And then lament that Hollywood so rarely makes more movies like it.



Philip Seymour Hoffman as Lancaster Dodd in The Master.

  

A Conversation with a Hateful Idiot

On Saturday afternoon a man was standing in Congress Square with a sign that read, "No on 1," meaning "Question 1," on the election ballot which would legalize gay-marriage in the state of Maine.

I was feeling rather bold I guess, because I approached the man (who was standing where the Christian fundamentalist "Preacher"  and his clan usually chant every evening) and politely asked him if he was married. He told me he was. I then asked how same-sex couples getting married would personally affect his heterosexual marriage. He responded with a litany of falsehoods, inaccuracies and outright illogical arguments.

First, he told me that allowing same-sex marriage is a legal issue because such a law would be in direct defiance of the law prohibiting same-sex marriage. Except that the state of Maine currently has no such law.

While same-sex marriage is not, as of this moment, legal in Maine, the state has not amended its constitution--as many other states have--explicitly banning marriages of gay couples. (North Carolina passed such an amendment to its state constitution earlier this year.) In other words, the way our state constitution currently stands, even if "Question 1" fails at the polls this November, same-sex marriage supporters could still make another bid for equal rights in the future.

Next he told me that the Constitution is the "law of God" and was inspired by Christian gospel. This is, of course, nonsense. In fact, the only mention of "religion" anywhere in the U.S. Constitution is in the First Amendment which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Finally, the man told me if gay-marriage is allowed, then other "extreme" (his exact word) acts would follow, like public nudity becoming acceptable (his actual example). "I don't want my kids to walk down the street seeing men and women naked," he told me. He then went on to blame homosexuality for the spread of AIDS and broken marriages.

But wait--it gets better.

This person also told me that he once was gay himself, but "found God" and realized the error of his "sins." So this fool is actually just a gay man in denial which, honestly, almost makes me feel bad for him. (Almost.)

I continued to argue with him, remaining calm and respectful the entire time. But, as you can see, nothing this man said was grounded in anything resembling reality. He argued the Bible is "fact," to which I countered, "No. Gravity is a fact. The Bible is a book." He remained unpersuaded.

I eventually abandoned the conversation--not that I harbored any notion I could change this man or at least offer some critical counter arguments to his message. I did not. I merely wanted to try to get a better understanding of why bigots such as this individual think the way they do. All I came away with, however, was that this person is extremely ignorant, uneducated and misinformed. As I was leaving some haggard looking man walked over to the sign-holder and said, "Yeah! I agree!" Then he asked, "What's '1'?" (This guy was, in retrospect, probably drunk.)

When the sign-holder told him it's about "same-sex marriage," the other man asked (again, his exact words), "What's that? Is it like having sex without a rubber?"

If people wonder why I am often so resentful of the overall lack of education in this country, it is because such ignorance leads directly to hateful speech such as this.

Here's hoping Mainers do the right thing and pass "Question 1" next month if only to stick-it to intolerant hatemongers such as this moron.

Portland Green, Tom MacMillan, a candidate for Maine House of Representatives, District #118

at a recent rally in support of gay marriage.

  

The Real News Network on the First Presidential Debate

The Real News Network's Paul Jay talks with Black Agenda Report's Managing Editor, Bruce Dixon about Wednesday's presidential debate. Dixon pretty much sums up my views when he calls the debate "boring." Likewise, on the issue of third-party candidates, Dixon urges viewers to, "vote what your real voice is, no matter what the outcome is."

For the Last Time: Lower Taxes Do Not Create Jobs!!!

After watching tonight's first presidential debate I A) need an aspirin, B) am reminded why I can't stand Jim Lehrer, and C) feel the need to clarify basic economic theory for the American people.

Throughout the debate--which focused on the economy--both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama drew correlations between business tax rates and unemployment. Romney, in particular, argued that higher tax rates on small businesses would force employers to lay workers off. (In keeping with the banal, childish rhetoric of these forums in which candidates speak in thought-terminating soundbites, he called such a policy a "job killer.")

This alleged correlation between taxes and unemployment is entirely false. There is no correlation between the two. Nada. Zero. Zilch. The idea that higher taxes will hurt employment or cause businesses to lay people off is a right-wing, free-market myth with absolutely no grounding in basic capitalist economics.

I wrote about this very issue back in June, but my everyday conversations suggest people still remain confused about the concept. Let me lay it out for you as simply as possible.

Let's say I own a small business. I sell comic-books. I have ten full-time employees. Suddenly, Maine Legislative Bill X, which raises the tax rates for all small businesses that employ ten staff members or more, becomes law. So the taxes on my comic-book shop will be going up.

Does this mean I will be forced to fire some of my employees in order to "cover" these higher taxes? No. It does not.

Here's why: First off, taxes have absolutely nothing to do with determining how many employees I need. That is determined by consumer demand. Now, here in Portland, comic-book shops are quite popular, so let's say I have very high demand. Thus, my needing ten full-time employees. This number ten was not some randomly determined number. It is based on the amount of business my store does.

Secondly, taxes are based on the amount of taxable income my business has after subtracting my costs from my revenue. Any profits I have made after covering my business's costs are considered "taxable income." And you only pay taxes if your business is making a profit in the first place. In other words, if my comic-book shop is dead most of the day and my employees are bored out of their minds throughout their shifts because there is nothing to do but read comics all day, then I as the store owner have far bigger concerns than my taxes.

And even if I did fire some people in order to "cover" my taxes, it would be completely counterproductive because doing so would lower my costs, thus increasing my profit and, as a result, my amount of taxable income.

The two things--business tax rates and unemployment--are not related. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to enroll in Economics 101.

Update: Portland resident and small business owner, Stretch Tuemmler, says the same thing in his letter to the editor in today's Portland Press Herald ("Ending tax cuts for the rich would aid small business," 10/05/2012). He writes, "As a small business owner, I hire when the demand is there. Really has nothing to do with tax rate."

Dead Prez, "Politricks"

 

 

One of the most radical rap groups of all time.

Lewiston: A Case Study in How Ignorance Leads to Hate

Re: "Lewiston Mayor asked to resign after comments," Portland Press Herald, 10/02/2012.

Unfortunately, I fear Lewiston Mayor Robert MacDonald's racist views are not exclusive to him. Having worked in the Lewiston-Auburn area, I have experienced firsthand the pervasive attitudes of racism, sexism and homophobia. (This is certainly not to suggest that everyone in Lewiston-Auburn is racist/sexist/homophobic, etc. But there does seem to be a greater degree of acceptance of such intolerant views in the area than in the southern half of the state.)

This is what happens in economically deprived cities like Lewiston-Auburn. Like Biddeford, "L.A." was once a thriving mill-town. But when the factories all closed due to outsourcing, residents in the twin cities found they had no other work opportunities.

When I taught at Central Maine Community College in Auburn, many of my students were middle-aged displaced workers who, once the mills closed, found they had no other occupational skills to fall back on. These individuals were frequently angry and bitter, sometimes even refusing to participate in various homework assignments. I can vividly recall one such student telling me, right in front of the rest of the class, "You suck as a teacher!" I calmly suggested the student leave the class if he felt that way, reminding him that nobody was forcing him to be there, but he refused to do so.

Needless to say, working with such hostile individuals is no easy task. Many of them work through vocational rehabilitation programs that require them to enroll at community college, and it is quite evident they do not want to be there. I found such students to be antagonistic, closed-minded and virulently anti-intellectual.

Yet, at the same time, I sympathize with them. These are the people society and the globalized economy have swept under the rug. They have been denied--either through upbringing, poverty, lack of opportunity, or circumstance--the intellectual, emotional, psychological and moral tools to become accepting, compassionate members of society. As a result, they lash out at those they perceive to be "The Other." Members of the Somali community make easy scapegoats for white, lower-class, uneducated Americans who lack more constructive ways of dealing with their anger.

Sad to say, but I do not think this is the case of one "bad apple." If anything, Mayor MacDonald's ignorant, hateful comments further highlight the urgent need for Maine to invest in quality jobs and education.

Rejecting the "Practical" (Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Vote My Conscience)

Jill Stein at Occupy Wall Street's One Year Anniversary in New York.

 

On November 6 I will vote for Jill Stein for president.

Yes, I know she will not win the election. She will come away with a mere two percent of the vote, at best. But that is not my fault. It is the fault of the dozens of so-called “progressives” I encounter on a regular basis who tell me they agree with “everything Stein stands for,” but refuse to take that ideological agreement to its next logical step and cast a vote for her. They are scared to death doing so could cost Obama the election.

I did not vote for Obama in 2008 and have no intention of doing so this time.

Don’t get me wrong: Obama is an intelligent, informed politician, and his efforts to carefully review all of the options in order to make an informed decision are a welcome change from the arrogant, “I’m the Decider!” bullishness of his predecessor. At the very least, it is refreshing to have an eloquent, oratorically sophisticated president who can correctly pronounce the word “nuclear.”

But while contemporary political discourse often confuses the two, public persona and personality characteristics are not the same as policy and legislative proposals. To that end, Obama may be, to paraphrase Neil Young, a kinder, gentler machine-gun president, but a machine-gun president, nonetheless.

Barack Obama has continued the most grievous aspects of George W. Bush’s militaristic foreign policy. He has expanded the war in Afghanistan, a conflict that, by all accounts, cannot be won.

Along with our troop presence in Libya, Yemen and Syria, we still maintain some 30,000 “noncombat” forces, including private contractors in Iraq. And Obama has further eroded the nation’s beleaguered relationship with Pakistan through the use of unmanned military drone attacks. Contrary to White House statements, these so-called precision drone strikes routinely kill innocent Pakistani bystanders, including women and children. In fact, the Obama administration’s official policy, as reported earlier this year in The New York Times, is to consider every military-age male within the general vicinity of a drone-strike to be a terrorist.

Worse and most troubling is the president’s use of a terrorist “kill list,” which includes American citizens who have joined al-Qaeda. (The U.S.-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki was one such casualty of Obama’s kill list.) As the Times reported back in May (5/29/2012), the files contain the names of individuals designated for “capture or kill,” in which the “capture part is mostly theoretical.”

Here at home, Obama signed into law the draconian National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which grants him the power to detain anyone designated a terrorist, including American citizens, indefinitely without warrant, evidence or trial. A federal judge recently deemed the law unconstitutional, but the Obama administration is now fighting to appeal the ruling. And let’s not forget the Patriot Act, and FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), holdovers from the Bush-era which Obama has refused to repeal. Finally, despite claims to the contrary, Obama has not abandoned the practice of torture and extraordinary rendition, which justifiably caused so much uproar during the Bush administration.   

Beyond the tired, “lesser evil” rationale, liberals who stand behind Obama argue they are making the “practical” choice. They say we Greens are “too idealistic,” and, as a result, unable to accept the “political reality” of our country. They are right: We do not accept it. Given that the “political reality” (read: “power structure”) primarily benefits corporate power, greedy Wall Street bankers, and outrageously wealthy oligarchs, why the hell should we?

“I can’t join the practical,” journalist Chris Hedges wrote four years ago in an article titled, “Only Nader is Right on the Issues” (Truthdig.com, 11/03/2008).

I spent two decades of my life witnessing the suffering of those on the receiving end of American power. I have stood over the rows of bodies, including women and children, butchered by Ronald Reagan’s Contra forces in Nicaragua. I have inspected the mutilated corpses dumped in pits outside San Salvador by the death squads. I have crouched in a concrete hovel as American-made F-16 fighter jets, piloted by Israelis, dropped 500- and 1000-pound iron-fragmentation bombs on Gaza City.

He adds, “Practical men and women do not stand up against injustice. The practical remain silent.”

Or, as a friend and fellow Green puts it, “Liberals make it their mission to save the Democratic Party. But Greens’ mission is to save the world.”

The Left today is epitomized by establishment professionals like Eric Alterman, who serve as perpetual apologists for President Obama and the Democrats. In the Ralph Nader documentary film, An Unreasonable Man, no other interviewee spews more venom and pure hatred at the former Green's alleged role in skewing the 2000 election results than Alterman. (His anger, incidentally, is completely misdirected. The Supreme Court stole the election from Al Gore—not Nader.)

In one scene of the film, Alterman calls Nader supporters “stupid,” insisting they “do not know anything about politics.” As a distinguished college professor, one would think Alterman would be capable of expressing himself in a more mature, sophisticated manner. But then his juvenile name-calling is often the extent of liberals’ anti-third-party argument. Here in Maine, the Democratic Party sued Nader back in 2004 in order to keep him off the state’s presidential ballot. And here you thought only the Republicans engage in such cravenly anti-democratic behavior.

“Cast your whole vote,” Henry David Thoreau wrote in Civil Disobedience, “not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority… but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight.”

It is bad enough about 60 percent of eligible American voters will not even bother to go to the polls on Election Day. But in some ways I find the timidity of liberals to actually vote for the platform they want, rather than hedging their bets on the one they believe will cause the least amount of harm, even worse.