Have you ever noticed how many of the films that have won Best Picture Oscars, especially in recent years, are decent, even good, but nonetheless forgettable? Most of the most memorable films in the public imagination never won the distinction of Best Picture: Brokeback Mountain (2005), Do The Right Thing (1989), and Citizen Kane (1941), to name a few. Best Picture winners tend to be safe bets, because they fit the sanitized mold of a "good film." One of 2013's Best Picture nominees is one of those movies.
Dallas Buyer's Club is based on the true story of Ron Woodruff (Matthew McConaughey), an electrician from Texas who contracts HIV in 1985 at the height of the AIDS panic. The homophobic, hard-partying cowboy is given only thirty days to live, but Woodruff challenges his prognosis and in the process sets up a drug dispensary to distribute non-FDA-approved medicine. This brings him into contact with Rayon (Jared Leto), a transgender woman who becomes his partner, and Eve (Jennifer Garner), who later becomes his friend.
There was little doubt that Jared Leto would win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. His transformation is perhaps even greater than McConaughey's: the men lost 77 pounds between the two of them. But Leto completely embodies his role, becoming Rayon, while McConaughey's eccentricities as an actor present a flawless performance that is never more than that - a performance.
Rayon is a character invented specifically for the film, and it is a wonderful move. Woodruff himself is straight (although the real-life Woodruff may have possibly been bisexual), but the number one victims of the AIDS virus at the time were LGBTQ individuals. As such, the film gives us Rayon to keep the audience reminded of the heart of the struggle against AIDS in the 1980s. I would applaud this decision for increased transgender visibility in the media, were it not for the fact that director Jean-Marc Vallé never considered a trans person for the role. There was a wonderful opportunity to actually cast a trans person to play a role from a pivotal moment of queer American history. This trend in Hollywood of casting straight white men to portray members of marginalized groups is damaging to society's understanding of those people. It gives us the ability to distance ourselves from the issues, and most importantly, the actual people suffering every day for things beyond their control, and to pat ourselves on the back for our ability to do impressions of them for awards consideration. If the representation of marginalized people does nothing for the actual human beings in those marginalized groups, representation is a double-edged sword.
What is even worse is the fact that in his acceptance speech at the Academy Awards on Sunday, Leto did not take the opportunity to discuss the plight of transgender people, not even within the context of the AIDS epidemic. He seemed more concerned with the crisis in Ukraine and singing the praises of his mother than addressing the fact that the only reason he won an Oscar was because of LGBTQ suffering during the 1980s. In my opinion, when you take a role that has underlying social connotations, you have a responsibility. To play a trans character but never discuss trans issues contributes to the erasure of the real life human beings who are trans themselves.
Then there is the fact that the Ron Woodruff of the film is portrayed as openly homophobic, only changing his views after partnering up with Rayon. However, the real life Woodruff was, according to friends, not homophobic in least, and possibly even bisexual himself. So there are two issues related to LGBTQ issues here: the film features a transgender person but never delves into the character's identity as a trans person in any significant way, and also features bisexual erasure.
The film plays out exactly the way Oscar bait typically does. There were no surprises, nothing unique about the film to recommend it other than the fact that it was nominated for Best Picture. Don't believe the hype.
RATING: ***/*****
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Sexism Is Not Dead
People are likely to challenge the notion that there is still a lot of work to be done to combat sexism in society. Feminism in the mainstream public imagination is a relic of the 1960s and 70s, in much the same way racism is seen as a 20th century issue that was magically solved with the Civil Rights Act. This way of thinking is dangerous to progress.
It is clear to all who are listening that despite the fact that there are more women in the workplace than ever, sexism is as strong as it has ever been. The mistaken belief that feminism defeated sexism in the 1970s allows the patriarchy to run unchecked. As a result, women AND men suffer.
As an outspoken feminist, I've seen my fair share of violent, sexist rhetoric. My Block list on tumblr, for example, is comprised almost exclusively of antifeminists who have targeted me based on social justice issues I've voiced my concerns about. I've been called a "feminzai" more than once - and as a Jewish woman, it offends me deeply. I've had gendered slurs hurled at me by the very same men who claim that sexism is dead. And every time I've had arguments with these men, they have made personal attacks, not logical ones.
One such incident happened in person. A half an hour before one of my political science finals, I arrived to find a student I had had many disagreements with over the course of the semester sitting at the professor's desk in her absence reading from a book by Michael Savage to the other assembled students. For those of you who don't know who Michael Savage is: There is a talk radio lunacy scale. Rush Limbaugh is, amazingly, only the first step. He is followed by Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. The top tier would be Michael Savage, a man who makes many Tea Partiers look positively moderate by comparison. I promptly turned around and said to the class "Let me know when he's done spouting his bullshit," and walked out of the room. The student, a Republican from South Carolina named Adam, had only started reading from Savage's book when I stepped into the classroom; I had no doubt he was trying to antagonize me.
I waited ten minutes, and then reentered the room. As I predicted, Savage's book was long gone. The peace, however, did not last long. Adam began discussing the Obama administration's position on drone strikes and, yet again, turned to challenge me. When he said "We're not the ones killing innocent people," I laughed.
"And what do you call the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?" I asked him.
"We're pro-life."
"Anti-abortion is not pro-life." I was just hoping he would bring me into an abortion debate. I was ready. And then he smiled the nastiest smile I've ever seen.
"Oh I know what's going on," he said, staring directly at me. "It's that time of the month and the government hasn't given you your medication yet."
That was the closest I've ever been to physical violence. I nearly left my seat and smacked him across his horrible arrogant face. The only thing that stayed my hand was the fact that I had a final exam. As the rest of the students in the room chattered nervously, I said to Adam in a low voice: "How fucking dare you."
Adam knew that he had thrown logic aside and resorted to personal attacks to rile me. And to this day I have no doubt that the only reason he did so was because I am a woman. It is a common trend: in a debate, men try to remain civil. If it is between a man and a woman, there is a noticeable lack of respect present. As I stood ready to engage in debate with an illogical conservative, he killed the discussion.
What made this even worse was my classmates' response. One person said "You really shouldn't have said that." But as I told Adam off, another student said, "But you're letting this get to you, it's what he wants." Others agreed.
At that moment I knew I was alone. Instead of standing up for a woman who had just been subjected to a horribly sexist personal attack, the class believed it was my responsibility to let it slide.
Patriarchal society would have us think it is up to women to not be offended, rather than up to the man to curb his sexism. Until we decide that, as a society, we must confront sexism in every setting, especially casual ones, women will continue to be victimized and dismissed.
Sexism is not dead. But it should be.
It is clear to all who are listening that despite the fact that there are more women in the workplace than ever, sexism is as strong as it has ever been. The mistaken belief that feminism defeated sexism in the 1970s allows the patriarchy to run unchecked. As a result, women AND men suffer.
As an outspoken feminist, I've seen my fair share of violent, sexist rhetoric. My Block list on tumblr, for example, is comprised almost exclusively of antifeminists who have targeted me based on social justice issues I've voiced my concerns about. I've been called a "feminzai" more than once - and as a Jewish woman, it offends me deeply. I've had gendered slurs hurled at me by the very same men who claim that sexism is dead. And every time I've had arguments with these men, they have made personal attacks, not logical ones.
One such incident happened in person. A half an hour before one of my political science finals, I arrived to find a student I had had many disagreements with over the course of the semester sitting at the professor's desk in her absence reading from a book by Michael Savage to the other assembled students. For those of you who don't know who Michael Savage is: There is a talk radio lunacy scale. Rush Limbaugh is, amazingly, only the first step. He is followed by Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. The top tier would be Michael Savage, a man who makes many Tea Partiers look positively moderate by comparison. I promptly turned around and said to the class "Let me know when he's done spouting his bullshit," and walked out of the room. The student, a Republican from South Carolina named Adam, had only started reading from Savage's book when I stepped into the classroom; I had no doubt he was trying to antagonize me.
I waited ten minutes, and then reentered the room. As I predicted, Savage's book was long gone. The peace, however, did not last long. Adam began discussing the Obama administration's position on drone strikes and, yet again, turned to challenge me. When he said "We're not the ones killing innocent people," I laughed.
"And what do you call the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?" I asked him.
"We're pro-life."
"Anti-abortion is not pro-life." I was just hoping he would bring me into an abortion debate. I was ready. And then he smiled the nastiest smile I've ever seen.
"Oh I know what's going on," he said, staring directly at me. "It's that time of the month and the government hasn't given you your medication yet."
That was the closest I've ever been to physical violence. I nearly left my seat and smacked him across his horrible arrogant face. The only thing that stayed my hand was the fact that I had a final exam. As the rest of the students in the room chattered nervously, I said to Adam in a low voice: "How fucking dare you."
Adam knew that he had thrown logic aside and resorted to personal attacks to rile me. And to this day I have no doubt that the only reason he did so was because I am a woman. It is a common trend: in a debate, men try to remain civil. If it is between a man and a woman, there is a noticeable lack of respect present. As I stood ready to engage in debate with an illogical conservative, he killed the discussion.
What made this even worse was my classmates' response. One person said "You really shouldn't have said that." But as I told Adam off, another student said, "But you're letting this get to you, it's what he wants." Others agreed.
At that moment I knew I was alone. Instead of standing up for a woman who had just been subjected to a horribly sexist personal attack, the class believed it was my responsibility to let it slide.
Patriarchal society would have us think it is up to women to not be offended, rather than up to the man to curb his sexism. Until we decide that, as a society, we must confront sexism in every setting, especially casual ones, women will continue to be victimized and dismissed.
Sexism is not dead. But it should be.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
A New Look At Journalism
In an age when "the media" is an ambiguous enemy apparently on both sides of the political aisle, ostensibly influenced by a liberal or corporate agenda (based on which side of the aisle you talk to about said media), it becomes difficult to remember what the media exists to do.
I say that the media exists in order to hold people accountable. It is supposed to be meant to serve the public interest by keeping us informed on what people are trying to get away with so that we can draw our own inevitable conclusions. At its core then, journalism exists to enforce and fight for morality.
If we follow this logic, it is clear that journalism should in its ideal state be progressive. It should have a backbone that is not swayed or corrupted by outside influence. This is completely different from the foolish notion that journalism should ideally remain neutral. Neutrality in an immoral world means inevitably siding with the immoral in the end.
The popular concept of neutrality as morality coincides easily with the aim of the corporations that own all major news outlets, and by extension, control the narrative of the media itself. Because as much as conservatives like to decry a supposed "liberal media," it is clear that corporations want to conserve their power and influence. The best way to do that is by toeing the line, where there is a proven avenue to monetary success, instead of challenging the societal norms that form the foundation of the world we live in.
This is why I do not believe that it is moral to remain passive in the face of violent (yes, violent) rhetoric that merely pretends to be "fair and balanced" while perpetuating a a narrative that continually denies basic human rights to the suffering masses. Casual racism and racist stereotypes, for example, contribute to a cultural conception of people of color that leads not only to physical violence but also continual fortification of immoral societal standards.
So there is obviously an issue with remaining neutral in the presentation of the stories we present. Yet it is also important to recognize that the stories we choose to even discuss, and the facts we deign to include and exclude, also contribute to a political agenda. One may choose to write an article about escalating tensions in a country demanding reforms to an oppressive political regime. By not including the fact that the opposition party organizing demonstrations and calling for the reforms are white supremacists, we lose a huge part of the story and as such the reader is given a limited understanding of the situation.
The way a story is framed gives it its structure; it influences the way the entire situation being reported is understood. I do not believe that it is ideal to frame both sides of a debate as equally valid, though I do agree that both sides must be addressed. That is, I think it is immoral to present both sides of a debate as credible merely to be able to claim journalistic integrity because it is dangerous false equivalency.
If morality is progressive, then it follows logically that journalism, as an ostensible force for honesty and justice, must likewise be earnestly progressive in all its forms. Only then will we be truly able to fight oppression in this world.
I say that the media exists in order to hold people accountable. It is supposed to be meant to serve the public interest by keeping us informed on what people are trying to get away with so that we can draw our own inevitable conclusions. At its core then, journalism exists to enforce and fight for morality.
If we follow this logic, it is clear that journalism should in its ideal state be progressive. It should have a backbone that is not swayed or corrupted by outside influence. This is completely different from the foolish notion that journalism should ideally remain neutral. Neutrality in an immoral world means inevitably siding with the immoral in the end.
The popular concept of neutrality as morality coincides easily with the aim of the corporations that own all major news outlets, and by extension, control the narrative of the media itself. Because as much as conservatives like to decry a supposed "liberal media," it is clear that corporations want to conserve their power and influence. The best way to do that is by toeing the line, where there is a proven avenue to monetary success, instead of challenging the societal norms that form the foundation of the world we live in.
This is why I do not believe that it is moral to remain passive in the face of violent (yes, violent) rhetoric that merely pretends to be "fair and balanced" while perpetuating a a narrative that continually denies basic human rights to the suffering masses. Casual racism and racist stereotypes, for example, contribute to a cultural conception of people of color that leads not only to physical violence but also continual fortification of immoral societal standards.
So there is obviously an issue with remaining neutral in the presentation of the stories we present. Yet it is also important to recognize that the stories we choose to even discuss, and the facts we deign to include and exclude, also contribute to a political agenda. One may choose to write an article about escalating tensions in a country demanding reforms to an oppressive political regime. By not including the fact that the opposition party organizing demonstrations and calling for the reforms are white supremacists, we lose a huge part of the story and as such the reader is given a limited understanding of the situation.
The way a story is framed gives it its structure; it influences the way the entire situation being reported is understood. I do not believe that it is ideal to frame both sides of a debate as equally valid, though I do agree that both sides must be addressed. That is, I think it is immoral to present both sides of a debate as credible merely to be able to claim journalistic integrity because it is dangerous false equivalency.
If morality is progressive, then it follows logically that journalism, as an ostensible force for honesty and justice, must likewise be earnestly progressive in all its forms. Only then will we be truly able to fight oppression in this world.
Monday, February 24, 2014
This blog represents my efforts to contribute to a meaningful dialogue about media. What I mean by that is that I am tired of abstract and unfocused modern criticism and interpretations of the media in all its forms, be it artistic, entertainment, or political. All current media possesses elements of all three, and by entering seriously into this world, I hope to become a part of a more consequential voice of contemporary artists.
To the point: All art is political. Or, to put it another way, all art, no matter the medium, is motivated by ideas. Those ideas do not exist within a vacuum: societal norms and political realities contribute, however subconsciously, to one's understanding of the world. As such, true art comes into being when the artist contains their conception of ideology into something of substance and presents it to the world at large. The art takes shape based upon the artist's reactions to the philosophical and political principles perpetuated within the sphere of social consciousness.
However, the real issue is that most do not challenge the concept of norms being unquestionable universal truths. This is precisely why, for example, patriarchal oppression remains stronger than ever, even in the modern age: sexist concepts have become so ingrained within us over the centuries of male domination that we come to revere them as complete fact. What a true artist does, then, is investigate supposed philosophical and political facts and challenge their legitimacy directly.
In literature, of course, heroes are the ones who question authority. Yet we must come to face a foe that is not even tangible, a foe that we must also face within ourselves. Each and every day it is essential for the artist to challenge one's own conceptions and strive to grow.
In short, I believe in responsibility in art and in media. I reject the notion that things such as sexism, homophobia, and racism are mere follies of human nature. Instead, I believe that they are systematic trends that are easier to follow than challenge; that is exactly why it is imperative to continue questioning.
What you will see on this blog will not be passive viewership or superficial critique. I will strive to contribute to a broader experience of the way we look at media by focusing not only on the film's competency as entertainment or "art" but on what political and social trends it perpetuates or attempts to dismantle. Time has shown us time and time again that the tendency of true art is to move the world towards progress far more than legislation can do. This is why I believe so strongly in a world where art remains front and center of any serious discourse. I hope that in time I can contribute to a better world of media.
To the point: All art is political. Or, to put it another way, all art, no matter the medium, is motivated by ideas. Those ideas do not exist within a vacuum: societal norms and political realities contribute, however subconsciously, to one's understanding of the world. As such, true art comes into being when the artist contains their conception of ideology into something of substance and presents it to the world at large. The art takes shape based upon the artist's reactions to the philosophical and political principles perpetuated within the sphere of social consciousness.
However, the real issue is that most do not challenge the concept of norms being unquestionable universal truths. This is precisely why, for example, patriarchal oppression remains stronger than ever, even in the modern age: sexist concepts have become so ingrained within us over the centuries of male domination that we come to revere them as complete fact. What a true artist does, then, is investigate supposed philosophical and political facts and challenge their legitimacy directly.
In literature, of course, heroes are the ones who question authority. Yet we must come to face a foe that is not even tangible, a foe that we must also face within ourselves. Each and every day it is essential for the artist to challenge one's own conceptions and strive to grow.
In short, I believe in responsibility in art and in media. I reject the notion that things such as sexism, homophobia, and racism are mere follies of human nature. Instead, I believe that they are systematic trends that are easier to follow than challenge; that is exactly why it is imperative to continue questioning.
What you will see on this blog will not be passive viewership or superficial critique. I will strive to contribute to a broader experience of the way we look at media by focusing not only on the film's competency as entertainment or "art" but on what political and social trends it perpetuates or attempts to dismantle. Time has shown us time and time again that the tendency of true art is to move the world towards progress far more than legislation can do. This is why I believe so strongly in a world where art remains front and center of any serious discourse. I hope that in time I can contribute to a better world of media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)