With
the impeachment drama on hold for now with Congress out for the Holidays—and
after Donald Trump’s Michigan rally left some of his listeners befuddled, maybe
he should be to—there isn’t too much to comment on save football and the movies. Actually, I’m
big movie guy, but not of the more recent variety. People don’t want to have to
think too much when they see a movie these days; like Trump, they are either
too dependent on “visual” aids or must have their preconceived convictions
unquestioned; anything involving subtlety, obsession, cynicism, paranoia,
skepticism or anything that counter’s one’s expectations—in other words,
anything that forces them to think—that is too “boring.”
On
the “visual” level you have what is hopefully the “last” Star Wars film, The Rise Of Skywalker, where we discover
that the “force” can also be used to raise people from the dead, as if they
have the power of God—because fans want a “happy” ending. I saw the original Star Wars in its first run as a youth and
left the theater mesmerized by what I had seen; although it wasn’t a great
film, Return of the Jedi wrapped-up
the story nicely, with the emperor and Vader dead and the republic restored
(albeit still headed by a “princess”). As disappointing as the “prequel” was,
at least it had a “point,” at least insofar as the “backstory” of how Anakin
Skywalker turned from Obi-Wan Kenobi’s best friend into Darth Vader.
The
sequels, on the other hand, had no point other than a money grab. What had
happened in the original trilogy had to be just thrown out the window; in order
to make the thing make “sense,” they brought back the original emperor, turned
Han Solo’s son by Princess (now “General”) Leia temporarily into a Vader clown
(I mean clone), and the scrawny 5-7 Daisy Ridley beating brawny 6-2 Adam Driver
in their “big duel” despite the fact their characters both have the “force.”
But of course that shouldn’t have come as a “surprise” because the “spoiler” is
right there on the poster, with Rey battering Ren (the "bad" Ben
Solo) into submission at the edge of a cliff (yeah, sure). “Fans” of course
will like it that “everything” turns out all right for the “good guys,” but
then again, that is what we thought after the first trilogy, and it seemed a
lot more satisfying then. The absurdity of the final film’s unbelievable fabrication
of story lines tying it to the original trilogy can be ascertained from Cinevue’s review: “And yes, gone
too is The Last Jedi’s rug-pulling revelation that Rey’s parents
were nobodies, replaced instead by a plot twist so indescribably stupid, so
emotionally and aesthetically ugly, that it could easily have been lifted from
the comment section of an incel’s YouTube video.”
But there was one story line that was of interest to me. In
an interview with The Guardian, the
clearly self-satisfied Ridley was asked if she felt that her position of privilege
in Britain (her mother’s family was landed gentry, just one step below official
aristocracy) had anything to do with her “meteoric” rise to “stardom.” Ridley
seemed to be annoyed by the question, eventually replying “Well no, because, no” and
then took a long pause desperately trying to think of some rationalization to
justify saying she was not privileged, before coming up with the worst possible
choice, involving co-star John Boyega, the son of Nigerian immigrants: “John
grew up on a council estate in Peckham and I think me and him are similar
enough that… no... Also, I went to a boarding school for performing arts, which
was different.”
Ridley
was immediately assailed for being tone deaf and self-serving, apparently
confusing council estate with what a country estate is; the former being what
in the U.S. would be called “public housing,” and the latter being akin to
plantation mansions of the Old South. But that kind of “confusion” is pretty
much par for the course when it comes to “socially-minded” white female actors.
I’ve already mentioned the so-called “expose” of Fox News, Bombshell, and how it focuses on how some of the white female
anchors who trafficked in racism and far-right conspiracies were actually “victims”
of a sexually pernicious atmosphere. I had to laugh when I heard Charlize
Theron, who portrayed Megyn Kelly, defend her portrayal by noting that in one
scene, Kelly could be heard making her “Santa was white” comment, which
frankly was one of her less “controversial” claims. Theron has told the story
of how her mother killed her father in “self-defense” as if that is the story
she has to believe, and about her “MeToo” moment—how a “famous director” once
put his hand on her knee, as if this is worse than putting thousands of
children in cages.
By
the way, in this society men are always expected to make the “first move”; now,
if the woman rejects it, it apparently automatically becomes a “MeToo”
accusation if you are an actress who needs to “prove” she is a “victim” like “everyone
else.” I say that perhaps men should boycott women, or at least force them to
make the “first move.” I have read that in Japan these days there is a “marriage
crisis” because many Japanese men are just too busy to have an interest in “intimate”
relations with women. Maybe they have the right idea.
Anyways,
the problem with Bombshell is typical
of the conceit of white women in this society—it ignores the role of these
women in creating the hyper-partisan political atmosphere that embraces racism
and far-right hysteria, Here are some comments from reviewers that better help
enlighten what is going on here:
Kitty Wenman of the UK Independent: “(Megyn) Kelly was allowed
to get to where she was because the idea of her as a feminist was more enticing
to us than the truth about her views. This represents white feminism at its
worst – ignoring the experience of those less privileged than us in order to
further our own standing. After all, it’s hard enough to constantly question
gender norms, let alone also fight racial oppression, or push for LGBTQ+ rights
or representation of those differently abled. Until we are able to acknowledge
the Kelly affair as a direct consequence of the pitfalls of white feminism, we
will be unable to dismantle the structural racism that permeates our society.
By celebrating the success of white women like Kelly without criticism of her
views on race, we – as white feminists – are complicit in the racial oppression
that sustains our privilege.”
Pier Dominguez of Buzzfeed: “As with Kelly, the Gretchen
Carlson (played by Nicole Kidman) we meet in the film is not the habitual
peddler of racist conspiracy theories (like her repeated emphasis on Barack
Obama’s middle name) and anti-gay and anti-trans talking points. Instead, Carlson is an ideological
maverick who faces pushback from Ailes for advocating for (some) gun control,
and for appearing makeup-less on an episode about empowering young women. ‘Nobody
wants to watch a middle-aged woman sweat her way through menopause,’ Ailes
admonishes her. As the film lays out its story, it narratively emphasizes the
importance of Kelly and Carlson’s breaking with the sexism of conservative
media orthodoxy, as if this means that they were ideologically independent-minded, rather than also
complicit with that orthodoxy… The types of power dynamics the explainer movie
foregrounds in the narrative (sexism against white women) and what it considers
background information (racial politics) speaks to how it manufactures the —
imagined mainstream and white — audience identification. Presumably,
representing the network’s racial politics would be too controversial and make
the protagonists too “unlikable” for the broad moviegoing audience.”
Charles Bramesco of the UK The Guardian: “The gap between Kelly’s esteem from establishment media and
her abhorrent track record in real life is so wide that Bombshell and its star Charlize
Theron can
tumble into it like a hiker into a crevasse. The Santa moment gets a noticeable
amount of screen time in Jay Roach’s modern-day period piece, both via a
snippet of the oft-replayed clip as well as a quick shot of black protesters in
Kris Kringle suits outside NewsCorp’s midtown Manhattan headquarters. Its
presence in the film feels like lip service, an obligatory acknowledgment of
the fact that Megyn Kelly did, on one occasion in the remote past, do something
wrong. But her deeper, more foundational moral lapses get largely swept under
the rug. Despite the fact that she calls a cub reporter ‘snowflake’ at one
point, someone with no outside information watching this film would perceive
Kelly as nothing more than a newswoman who ruffles the occasional feather in
her pursuit of the story.”
I think the real story here is that Kelly, Carlson and
company chose to “endure” for a while at Fox News for fame and fortune, and they obliged in "selling"
themselves in the pursuit of ratings and an evil social and political agenda,
which they were quite willing to do for their million dollar-or-so salaries.
And as we saw during Kelly’s stint on NBC, the racist attitudes she expressed
on Fox News were very likely her own, as were Gretchen Carlson’s. Should we be
applauding them for stepping out at all, rather than for not stepping forward
sooner, giving them more time to use “sex” to sell the outrages they were
perpetrating on the public, as many of their former colleagues still working
for Fox (Ingraham, Pirro) are still doing? Sure, it was just a “movie,” but Bombshell is typical of the dishonesty
of gender politics these days.
No comments:
Post a Comment