I find it very interesting that so little attention has been devoted to the French election on major english-speaking television stations in North America. Not knowing much about French politics, I've recently been interested in learning about the candidates, the context and the stakes of France's recent Presidential election (the first round results are just in now, and there will be a runoff between right-wing Sarkozy [~30%] and left-center Royal [~25%]). Elections are usually a fairly hot topic, but aside from french-language TV5, I found that few stations gave any coverage to the election in the lead-up to it, and now that the results are in, even less time to reporting the preliminaries. The print media, over time, has noted the importance of this election as "usher[ing] in a new generation of politicl leaders" (Reuters), and indeed initial estimates place the voter turnout at around 84%, one of the highest in half a century. Thus, it is not for lack of significance that coverage is so limited.
One might shrug off this TV snub as just bad timing: the VT massacre still dominates the American press, the Nigerian election has more "shock" value that falls in line with the television format, Earth Day has global appeal, etc. Somehow, I'm tempted to think otherwise.
It's well-known that France is treated with contempt by the Anglo press - beyond the obvious language difference, viewed as hostile to the obssession with linguistic supremacy of many English-speaking countries, their distinct brand of corporatism is dangerous to the liberal traditions of most English-speaking countries. Even in Canada, which supposedly bucks both of these trends, almost no english coverage on the election has been available. It is symbolic, though certainly (hopefully) coincidental, that CBC: Our World did an hour-long look at the cult of James Bond, exploring the linkages between British and North America reactions to Flemming's books and movies (CBC Newsworld, 6-7pm EST) even while analysts in France worked to untangle what these historic results mean for the future of a major force in the European Union, the world economy, and global governance. Doubtless the French election, whatever the final outcome, will have important consequences for Canada and the United States.
Although the prospects of left nationalism (Royal) is an improvement to right-nationalism (Sarkozy), to me it is only a marginal improvement. It is unclear to what extent Royal, if elected, will live up to her socialist credentials. As an admirer of Tony Blair earlier in her career, I have no clue on which "road" or "way" she ultimately will attempt to take France. Yet "Parti Socialiste", despite the uncertaintly of how that title will translate into policy, undoubtedly raises too many eyebrows for the media-capital-state fusion working hard at the ol' "smash and grab".
Not to say, of course, that the same is not happening in France. Still, a country in which nearly 10% of the 2002 vote went to self-described Trotskyists, and where nearly 5% of the vote this time around went to the "Revolutionary Communist League", is one that is perhaps a little too controversial for North America, where the active elite political project of making an alternative to capitalism unthinkable operates in perpetual and full force. After all, so the saying goes, any publicity is good publicity.
-Matt
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
"Deja Vu" - The Ultimate Sacrifice
As a prelude to what I hope are many posts to come, I thought I would start with a comment on what is cinematographically a less than stellar film, and conceptually, a detestable one - "Deja Vu". While I'll do my best to avoid spoiling the plot without being too vague, I can't make any promises. Consider yourself warned!
My immediate reaction to this film was, as should be expected, skepticism. Clearly, the film is smugly contrived, albeit with a great intro sequence and a healthy dose of music throughout to hold the viewer, and this is evident within the first 15 minutes. But to what end is the movie directed?
On one hand, the movie ambitiously aims at a revision of the technological capabilities of the American intelligence community, and attempts to "shock and awe" viewers with an irrelevant showing of air, land and sea machinery. In the process, it earns a thought or two regarding the logic behind its science (of which I certainly am not capable of commenting on, though I'm sure is naively incoherent). Yet, much more darkly, Deja Vu seeks to pry public opinion away from criticism and towards subjugation to the aims of that power-laden collective of nationhood, commonly recognized via those elusive first-person prounouns "We, Us, and Our".
The film opens with obvious references to Hurricane Katrina, easily discernible to an American audience as an emblem of failed commitment and incomplete sacrifice on the part of government officials on a variety of geographic scales. For some thirty minutes, it builds up the character of Doug Carlin, a sharp and capable ATF agent with no familial, and no clear organizational (read: bureaucratic) ties. Indeed, the Hero must break protocol in order to maximize his effectiveness as a 'saviour of life'. However, despite the apparent contradictions at first glance, the deeper narrative unfolds quickly thereafter, priming the audience for the grand enterprise of nationalism.
Throughout the film, insignias of the state are deliberately placed in clear view - a yellow ribbon on the back of a car here (1:10:43), a "Support Our Troops" sticker during a raid there (1:15:18). Yet the government, or the bureaucratic process, is criticized as inflexible, uncaring and ineffective (1:20:00-1:20:30). Deja Vu has all the hallmarks of a classic Hollywood film - libertarian in spirit, brutually conformist in articulation, which is carefully plotted within the dialogue of the film. At one point, the antagonist - an enigmatic figure of freedom/terrorism declares that "sometimes a little human collateral is the cost of freedom". This sentiment is echoed in the well-known proverb "one man's terrorist is another man's patriot" that appears in the film shortly after (1:17:30). These two statements, in the context that the film frames them in, work to justify and support American intervention in Iraq and encourage (if not manipulate) viewers to do the same.
A recurrent theme in the latter half of the movie, and emphasized a second time in a question at the end of the movie certainly resonated with me - that is, after all I had seen: "What if you had to tell someone the most important thing in the world, but you know they'd never believe you" (1:57:30). The state, even if the government is off-base, is never wrong - it just appears that way to a demanding and ungrateful populace. Trust your institutions (and really, implicitly, your leaders). It is fitting that at one point, while the media reports a story noting a demand for increased expenditures for the war (at least that's what it appears to be), one character mutes the TV and instead prays to god for "a great day" (41:55).
Of course, the core message of the film, enunciated throughout the thread of the plot rings clear - 'We [the state] watch you - in the shower even - but its ok, we'll save you in the end'. Support the troops, avoid criticizing the government if possible, certainly refrain from criticizing the state. Above all, submit yourself to Safety, which only the state can provide.
Deja Vu tries hard to mask itself in a whirlwind of confusion, meant to raise questions but shroud straight answers in subtle (and not so subtle) displays of nationalism, militarism and social control. It suceeds by walking that fine line between borderline overtness and half-clever craftiness. Conceivably, watching this movie without a critical eye could lead to a semi-pleasant encounter in mind-numbing sensationalism - although the seed of submission to the nation-state will undoubtedly be laid.
There is alot to get out of this movie, and I encourage feedback, discussion and criticism, as well as an awakening to the many points that I've missed. Though, of course, not too much of all of these - but not on the account of my ego. Put simply, the movie doesn't deserve it.
http://video.movies.go.com/dejavu/
-Matt
My immediate reaction to this film was, as should be expected, skepticism. Clearly, the film is smugly contrived, albeit with a great intro sequence and a healthy dose of music throughout to hold the viewer, and this is evident within the first 15 minutes. But to what end is the movie directed?
On one hand, the movie ambitiously aims at a revision of the technological capabilities of the American intelligence community, and attempts to "shock and awe" viewers with an irrelevant showing of air, land and sea machinery. In the process, it earns a thought or two regarding the logic behind its science (of which I certainly am not capable of commenting on, though I'm sure is naively incoherent). Yet, much more darkly, Deja Vu seeks to pry public opinion away from criticism and towards subjugation to the aims of that power-laden collective of nationhood, commonly recognized via those elusive first-person prounouns "We, Us, and Our".
The film opens with obvious references to Hurricane Katrina, easily discernible to an American audience as an emblem of failed commitment and incomplete sacrifice on the part of government officials on a variety of geographic scales. For some thirty minutes, it builds up the character of Doug Carlin, a sharp and capable ATF agent with no familial, and no clear organizational (read: bureaucratic) ties. Indeed, the Hero must break protocol in order to maximize his effectiveness as a 'saviour of life'. However, despite the apparent contradictions at first glance, the deeper narrative unfolds quickly thereafter, priming the audience for the grand enterprise of nationalism.
Throughout the film, insignias of the state are deliberately placed in clear view - a yellow ribbon on the back of a car here (1:10:43), a "Support Our Troops" sticker during a raid there (1:15:18). Yet the government, or the bureaucratic process, is criticized as inflexible, uncaring and ineffective (1:20:00-1:20:30). Deja Vu has all the hallmarks of a classic Hollywood film - libertarian in spirit, brutually conformist in articulation, which is carefully plotted within the dialogue of the film. At one point, the antagonist - an enigmatic figure of freedom/terrorism declares that "sometimes a little human collateral is the cost of freedom". This sentiment is echoed in the well-known proverb "one man's terrorist is another man's patriot" that appears in the film shortly after (1:17:30). These two statements, in the context that the film frames them in, work to justify and support American intervention in Iraq and encourage (if not manipulate) viewers to do the same.
A recurrent theme in the latter half of the movie, and emphasized a second time in a question at the end of the movie certainly resonated with me - that is, after all I had seen: "What if you had to tell someone the most important thing in the world, but you know they'd never believe you" (1:57:30). The state, even if the government is off-base, is never wrong - it just appears that way to a demanding and ungrateful populace. Trust your institutions (and really, implicitly, your leaders). It is fitting that at one point, while the media reports a story noting a demand for increased expenditures for the war (at least that's what it appears to be), one character mutes the TV and instead prays to god for "a great day" (41:55).
Of course, the core message of the film, enunciated throughout the thread of the plot rings clear - 'We [the state] watch you - in the shower even - but its ok, we'll save you in the end'. Support the troops, avoid criticizing the government if possible, certainly refrain from criticizing the state. Above all, submit yourself to Safety, which only the state can provide.
Deja Vu tries hard to mask itself in a whirlwind of confusion, meant to raise questions but shroud straight answers in subtle (and not so subtle) displays of nationalism, militarism and social control. It suceeds by walking that fine line between borderline overtness and half-clever craftiness. Conceivably, watching this movie without a critical eye could lead to a semi-pleasant encounter in mind-numbing sensationalism - although the seed of submission to the nation-state will undoubtedly be laid.
There is alot to get out of this movie, and I encourage feedback, discussion and criticism, as well as an awakening to the many points that I've missed. Though, of course, not too much of all of these - but not on the account of my ego. Put simply, the movie doesn't deserve it.
http://video.movies.go.com/dejavu/
-Matt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)