American Racism

            Racism today is often times hidden. It’s subtle. I don’t know anyone who would openly admit to hating people of a certain race. I do, however, know people who have prejudices. They would never confess this underlying discrimination, but it’s there nonetheless. Maybe it’s the way they renounce racism too heavily but in reality are apprehensive of people of other races. Maybe it’s prevalently hidden in conversations they have about race. Whatever it is, we see racism everyday; it’s just not as blatant as it once was.

            This same genre of racism is rampant in movies. Even movies like Crash, that are supposedly battling it, have their fair share of racist moments or themes. American History X is one of these movies. Other movies seem to be coincidentally racist. It just so happens that the bad driver is Asian. Or it just so happens that the alcoholic is Native American. American Gangster is one of these kinds of movies.

            American History X is about a Derek and Danny Vineyard. Derek became apart of a neo-Nazi organization. He is involved to the degree that he is one of the better-known figures in white supremacist organizations in the area he lives. He hates minorities. The movie shows him brutally murder a couple black guys among other severely racist acts. He is idolized by most of the racist white people in the community.

            The movie is supposed to show its anti-racism through the journey Derek, and consequently Danny, takes to becoming an accepting person. He realizes that racism is a terrible thing and tries to reverse some of the damage he caused. He tries to convince his friends that he was wrong. Through this transformation the viewer idolizes Derek. His change of heart is the act of a noble protagonist. The problem is that he always was the protagonist. Even when he was ruthlessly murdering people just because they were of another race the viewer is, to some extent, on his side. He hates people who aren’t white and the viewer is almost encouraged to sympathize with him. His change of heart is so trivial and hinges on such a weak turning point that Derek’s arguments for why he is racist almost drown out the moral of the movie.

            In one scene the Vineyard family is having family dinner. Derek gets in an argument with his mom’s boyfriend about minorities. The mom’s boyfriend is trying to convince Derek that often times minorities are victims trapped in a racist system. Derek hates this idea. He also argues to justify cops beating up black guys. Cops have the authority to make “those calls.” He argues similar things throughout most of the movie. Obviously he has a change of heart in the movie but in a lot of ways it doesn’t seem to do much for the message. In the family dinner scene Derek is extremely persuasive. He’s intelligent and speaks eloquently. He still seems to be the protagonist while arguing these points and the film almost encourages the viewer to side with him. A clip of the scene is on youtube and the top comment agrees with Derek: “This whole speech is dead on. The fact that they make the character a nazi just takes away from the fact that he's telling the truth. I don't agree with everything he says in this movie, but I sure agree with this. Rodney King was a piece of shit.”

            As well as being intelligent Derek is handsome, tough, and charismatic. When that face is put on racism it’s a lot more appealing. I think in a lot of ways this movie encourages racism. Like the person who commented on youtube, most people won’t subscribe to Nazism. They will, however, accept some of the racist attitudes when the argument is too one-sided. In another scene Derek and his white friends play a group of black guys in basketball to see who gets the court. The loser isn’t allowed to play there ever again. Derek’s team wins. Again, he’s still the protagonist. There is a sense of victory felt by the viewer.

            In American Gangster Denzel Washington’s character, Frank Lucas, is as likeable as any of the other characters he’s played. He’s smooth, savvy, charming, and tough. The problem is, he’s the biggest drug dealer in Harlem. He’s being chased persistently by Russell Crowe’s character Richie Roberts. Richie is in a lot of ways like the American cowboy type of character. He’s wild, gets the girls, accomplishes tasks through unconventional means, but is still a good guy who makes ethical decisions. Frank on the other hand is the face of drug dealing. He also happens to be black. So the face of drugs in the movie is a black one. If that doesn’t reinforce harmful stereotypes then I don’t know what does.

            Recent studies from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention have shown that white people are more likely to sell and use drugs then black people. This is contrary to most people’s belief. When you put a black identity on the drug problem, in a hit Hollywood movie, it encourages these fallacious beliefs.

            It seems as though we can’t escape racism. Whether it’s subtle or blatant it seems to always be hidden somewhere. Even in movies that are supposed to be battling the disease seem to subconsciously perpetuate it. If we’re not conscious of it we might find ourselves being persuaded towards discrimination. 

You're Not Your Fucking Lipstick

            “Yes these are bruises from fighting. Yes I’m comfortable with that. I am enlightened,” says Jack as he bumps into a woman, knocking the papers out of her arms. Jack is becoming a man. One way of understanding Fight Club’s message is a guy’s need to become a man. A guy’s insatiable desire to do manly things instead of things like flipping through Ikea catalogs. Fight Club oozes with manliness: constant fighting, massive explosions, and glorified muscles. That’s the lens through which the movie displays its message. That is not the message though. The message I receive from the movie is a unisex one. Both women and men like Fight Club and that’s not only because Brad Pitt is in it. It is relatable to everyone. Though it’s told through the eyes of white, male Jack, everybody can access the message. In Fight Club the message is delivered through a testosterone powered story. Despite being drowned in masculinity, the significance of the movie is androgynous. If only it didn’t reinforce gender stereotypes so drastically.

            Jack isn’t very masculine. He loves buying things from Ikea and decorating his house. This is obviously something normally attributed to femininity. He goes to self-help groups where emotions are rampant. Being emotional is also something normally attributed to femininity. One of the support groups he enjoys most is the testicular cancer support group. The men here don’t have balls. Lacking balls is another attribute normally attributed to femininity. Consequently, society seems to have labeled Jack as weak. This association between femininity and weakness is harmful. Femininity is associated with being female. Therefore, being female and being weak are implicitly equalized in the film. A very damaging message indeed. If we’re able to look past that, however, the film can be used to encourage and “enlighten” those of either gender. It’s not simply the femininity that depresses Jack. It’s the dichotomy between what he is because of society, and what society is telling him he should be. All the products and pressures of his culture weigh him down. Surely a female can relate to this. All of the things a woman is supposed to be, causes severe stress for tons of women. Reifying what it is to be human through the products marketed to women is dehumanizing. The media says, “This is what a woman looks like” and to not respond is to create great anxiety. It’s not masculinity as such creating Jack’s problem, it’s conforming to impossible expectations.

            Fight Club is about rejecting those impossible expectations. It’s not about manliness. Referring to an ad with displaying a “manly”, male, Gucci model Jack asks Tyler, “Is that what a man looks like?” and Tyler laughs. In his monologue Jack declares, “I felt sorry for guys packed in gyms… trying to look like how Calvin Klein or Tommy Hilfiger said they should.” As with every scene in the movie, this scene on the bus only depicts the problem as males face it. Truth be told, women face the exact same problem. “Is that what a woman looks like?” “I felt sorry for girls packed in gyms.” It’s the same thing. Society tells us what we are supposed to look like. Fight Club tells us how to fight back. The “fight” in Fight Club isn’t about dudes beating the crap out of each other. It’s about beating the crap out of the system. Reject the ideas that advertising, business, and government inject us with. Women and Men aren’t what the TV says they are.

            After a discussion about the absentness of their fathers, Tyler tells Jack that they are, “A generation of men raised by women.” Talking about marriage he then says, “I’m wondering if another woman is the answer we really need.” This may seem like it’s talking about men and women but it’s not. It is still referring to the system. We’re supposed to grow up, get a job, and get married. The quote works just as effectively (probably more so) when the gender is reversed. “I’m wondering if another man is the answer we really need.” It represents the rejection of the formula we’re supposed to live. It isn’t the rejection of a gender.

            The reinforcement of damaging gender stereotypes in Fight Club can’t be denied. The marvelous thing is that the movie’s message is to reject what media and entertainment shove down our throats. If these stereotypes are accepted then the entire message of the movie has been lost. “You are not your job. You’re not how much money you have in the bank. You’re not the car you drive. You’re not the contents of your wallet. You’re not your fucking khakis.” This is the point of the movie. It doesn’t matter what society says you are, you’re not that. If you let society determine who you are, you need to seriously reexamine your life. If you accept that women are unimportant and weak like Marla is in Fight Club, you’re doing something wrong. “You’re not your fucking khakis” means the same thing as, “You’re not your fucking skirt, or purse, or lipstick.” Fight Club tells us to reject the cultural norms of our society. If we accept the cultural norms found within the movie, we didn’t understand the movie. 

The New Nut Shot

one of the cheapest ways to get a laugh in a movie is to show a guy getting hit in the nuts. For some reason people love it. They think it’s hilarious. But clearly it’s cut-rate. Physical humor isn’t the most intelligent kind of humor to begin with, and crotch shots are probably the least intelligent kind of physical humor. Writers don’t need to rack their brains to think of a scene showing a guy racking his nuts. Though I find myself chuckling at an occasional nut shot, I can’t help but be disappointed in the writers. They’re just plain cheap.

            While watching the movie Best in Show I noticed a different kind of humor that seems very similar to nut shot category to me. It’s just as unintelligent, just as predictable, and just as cheap. Likewise it is a pretty sure way to get a laugh without exerting much effort.

            Best in show is a mockumentary that follows five dogs and their owners through a dog show competition. The dog owners’ personalities and backgrounds differ greatly. Meg and Hamilton Swan are a yuppie couple who own a Weimaraner. The humor resulting from their personalities is original and recognizable. They love Starbucks, Macs, and clothing catalogs. The owner of a Bloodhound, Harlan Pepper, is a lovable hick. He is also an original character with some classic one-liners. Gerry and Cookie Fleck own a Terrier who they write and sing songs about. Gerry literally has two left feet and Cookie has slept with almost every new man the two characters encounter. Also original characters. The owners of a fancy poodle, Sherri Ann and Leslie Ward Cabot are funny and new. Sherri Ann is married to an almost dead rich guy but is in love with Leslie Ward. The two women end up together. Though there are a few lesbian stereotypes, the characters remain original for the most part. Lastly there’s Scott Donlan and Stefan Vanderhoof, the owners of a Shih Tzu. Scott and Stefan are a gay couple. The jokes resulting from these two are unintelligent, predictable, and cheap.

            The comedic gayness exuded by Scott and Stefan is just like the comedic agony exuded from a nut shot: it’s cheap. Scott is extremely flamboyant and 99% of his jokes are about how apparently gay guys act. He’s extremely sassy, sexual, effeminate, and fashionable. It’s cheap because it’s a stereotype. When a gay guy with a saucy lisp mentions how unfashionable someone is, people laugh.            The first thing Scott says in the movie is, “So basically, you know, a lot of meat!” He and Stefan are in a butcher shop in this scene and the butcher has just listed off what is available. Of course a gay guy would be unable to keep is cool in a place with so much “meat”. One of the next things he says is, “Get one of those pepperoni sticks out, I just want to hold it.” Evidently all gay guys only have one thing on their minds: penises. Less than a minute later, after the butcher shop scene, Scott makes another joke about wieners, “I knew a guy who had two members on the same body, dated him for about a half hour, got so exhausted.”

            For the remainder of the movie almost every scene with Scott and Stefan involves them checking out other guys, being overly fashionable, and acting nauseatingly sarcastic. What else would you expect from a gay couple? I find it strange that Scott and Stefan from Best in Show, Cameron from the television show Modern Family, Jack from Will & Grace, and other similar characters fit the “age-old pansy stereotype” when most of the gay guys I know in the actual world act very differently. I have to take a step back and think, “What do these stereotypes do for the gay community?”

            Being raised in Utah Valley influenced me to some degree to be partially homophobic when I was younger. In junior high I told my brother about a gay kid at school. He said some things that changed my outlook forever. He looked at me and asked sincerely, “Do you want to do every girl you hang out with?” I responded that I didn’t. He said neither do gay guys. Before now I egotistically assumed every gay I encountered probably wanted to get it on with me. This lesson taught me I was wrong. The problem is, characters like Scott seem to actually be horny for every guy they meet. They seem to only be thinking about penises and new clothes. They seem to be flamboyant to and intimidating degree.

            Though many movies and TV shows tell us differently, it’s obvious that all gay guys aren’t like Scott. Just as my brother taught me in junior high, gay guys are just like me except they do it with guys and I do it with girls. It turns out that this new nut shot style of comedy isn’t only cheap, it’s damaging. It is especially harmful in a conservative community such as Utah Valley where the limited exposure to homosexuality comes from the TV. My brother taught me something else. He told me that the gay kid at my junior high I told him about would grow up and probably move out of Utah. When people ask this kid what Utah is like he’ll probably tell them it sucks. He’ll probably accurately tell them that Utahns were cruel to him. Gay people are just like straight people, and all people deserve to be treated with respect.

Soccer Practice Poverty

Over the blasting of some terrible sell-out punk band’s collage of repetitive drumbeats, distorted power chords, and nasally voiced melodies, 11 year-old me could hear my mom shouting. Her duties as a soccer mom had commenced for the day, and I was being rounded up for practice. Soccer was my favorite sport. Before now I was one of the best on my team and I loved going to practice, but not anymore. I was on a new team—a “better” team. This new team would go on to win the state championship the next two years in a row. I really did not like this team.

            My mom and I would engage in our tri-weekly verbal altercation about me going to practice. The war of words and wit would usually end with my mom pointing out that, “We paid a lot of money for you to be on this team! You’re going to practice!” But I really did not like this team.

            We would hop in my mom’s stereotypical-soccer-mom Tahoe and begin our 10-minute drive to the soccer fields. That drive was the worst. My mom would reassure me that I would make friends on the team; it just might take some time. I would hear my mom’s condolences as I hurriedly tied my cleats, but I wouldn’t believe her. The closer we got to the fields, the deeper the pit-of-anxiety in my stomach would become. Sometimes after we’d arrive at the fields, and as I be departed from the sanctuary of the SUV, my mom would say, “See if you can get a ride home with one of your teammates.” This would transform the pit in my stomach into a crater. I really did not like this team.

Prejudice:

            Why was I so pessimistic? Why didn’t I like this new team? Why didn’t I enjoy going to practice anymore? Why wasn’t I friends with my teammates? Although I was an upper middle class white kid, going to soccer practice with upper middle class white kids, I was (at least from my point of view as an 11 year-old) a victim of prejudice. I felt as if none of the kids would give me a chance. The coach would instruct the team to get in groups of four or five. Somehow I seemed to always be the odd one out. These kids didn’t like me. But they didn’t even know me. Somehow I endured this wretched affliction of playing on an elite and expensive soccer team for an entire year. I could not seem to show the other kids on the team that I was cool. After a year the prejudice ceased. Eventually some of my teammates became my best friends.

            What do race, class, gender, sexuality, and 11 year-old me have in common? They are often times the criteria to be the victims of prejudices. Similarly the prejudices that result from being a member of one or more of these categories are usually the consequence of ignorance. My teammates didn’t like me until they got to know me. I was different in that I had not been on the team as long as they had. I was the new kid, and new things make people uneasy. This can be said for most prejudices people hold. People are uncomfortable about things they don’t understand. Once my teammates understood me, we got along wonderfully. When a child is raised thinking certain races are inferior in one way or another, she/he will most likely have a prejudice against those races. When the child goes to college and gets to know someone of this race, those preconceived prejudices will often times go away. Once she/he takes a moment to get to know people she/he was taught to detest, the prejudice will dissipate.

Discrimination is easy to see presently and historically in the categories of race, gender, and sexuality. Most people I know would not dispute the fact that non-caucasian people and women have been severely discriminated against in our countries history. Most people I know, however bigoted, would not even deny the blatant discrimination against homosexual people. Obviously we must be extremely conscious of these prejudices, and do everything we can to diminish them; but I believe there is one type of prevalent prejudice that goes unnoticed. That is the prejudice against lower-class people.

Exalting the Wealthy:

            The Dark Knight Rises is a good example of this prejudice shown in the movies. Most people who saw it probably did not consciously notice the propaganda the film indoctrinated its viewers with. Bruce Wayne is a rich philanthropist. He is a victor in the game of capitalism. As is often true of the wealthy, he inherited his money. Though he acts like a careless party boy to the Gotham public, he is depicted to the viewer as the benevolent superhero Batman. In this particular film Batman encounters Catwoman who has an ideology opposing his. She despises the fact that there is such a strong divide between the rich and the poor. She is anxiously anticipating the day when the capitalistic class structure crumbles and the rich are just like everybody else.

            Catwoman’s point of view seems like it has some merit at first. She gives some advice to Batman by saying, "You and your friends better batten down the hatches cause when it hits, you're all going to wonder how you ever thought you could live so large, and leave so little for the rest of us." This is an attack at the wealthy, and Catwoman is defending the poverty stricken. Throughout the first half of the movie she makes many remarks like this. She takes stabs at the way Bruce Wayne lives and the injustices inflicted by the wealthy. The poor are defended and the rampant capitalism in Gotham is critiqued.

            The evil villain Bane even seems to make some valid points for the revolution he instigates. Homelessness and deficiency plague the city of Gotham. Bane allies himself with these people to crumble the unjust class structure repressing, what looks like, the majority of Gotham. He rallies the people together against the wealthy by saying they need to liberate themselves from their oppressors. Gotham needs to be given back to the people! He creates a rebellion suspiciously similar the Occupy Wall Street movement. Why should a small minority of the people in the city posses a vast majority of the wealth?

            At this point during the movie it looks like it is portraying sophisticated depiction of opposing ideals. Catwoman’s argument that it is very immoral when the rich leave so little for everyone makes a lot of sense. Even the one representing evil (Bane) has merit in his reasons for the rebellion. It turns out that both of their views are worthless. At least that is the conclusion made in the movie—we need the rich. When the rich are exalted to such a level the poor are severely castigated. If they were more righteous they would be wealthier. If they were not so lazy then they too could share the blessings that come from hard work.

            Bane’s goal in setting off the revolution is successful. The angry, slacker citizens start riots all over the city. They are very violent and very evil. This is a blatant attack on Occupy Wall Street. The people in the movie are trying to bring down their Wall Street. By doing so they are depicted as malevolent and erroneous. It turns out the mastermind of the operation does not even believe in the cause. He just wants to destroy the city. It does not matter if the movement he started is successful, because he never believed in it. He’s gong to blow the whole city up anyway. The impression given off by the movie is that if the one who organized the whole group doesn’t even believe in the cause, there is no worth to the cause. The anguished lower-class citizens involved in the riot were completely misled. The rich people in Gotham (Wall Street) are needed to instantiate order, peace, and happiness.

            Catwoman’s ideologies are also represented as being wrongheaded. In the first half of the movie she anticipated the time when the rich would be just like everyone else. She was eager for the time when they would pay the consequence for living in such excess. When Bane’s revolution takes hold the city becomes the wealthy-less metropolis Catwoman pleasurably prophesied of. For some reason she is not happy though. Without much explanation she admits she was wrong and jumps onto capitalistic ideology of Batman and fights for it alongside him. She implicitly admits that the class structure with the wealthy living well beyond their means is necessary for a respectable society. The viewer is left with the impression that society can only function with the foundation of the rich. Ideologies opposing capitalism will prove to be futile.

Lower class:

            These messages, conveyed by the praise of those who are wealthy, are harmful to our perceptions of those who are not. When it is righteous to be rich, it is immoral to be poor. When it is hard work, intelligence, and nobility that lead to wealth, it is laziness, ineptness, and selfishness that lead to poverty. Clearly this is not the case. Undoubtedly there are righteous, hardworking, and intelligent people who do not have money. It is also true, however, that people without money are looked down on, and even despised. They are thought of as lazy. Laziness is a sin so they are thought of as sinful. This prejudice must stop.

            Though Batman wants us to believe our capitalistic society is the way society must be, we should fight to give everyone an equal opportunity. Where Catwoman abandoned her principles, we must stay strong in ending the cycle of abuse many without money are trapped in. Poverty is not wickedness. Wealth is not righteousness.

We just see dirty clothes and another bum beggin',
Whatta bout the kid who was an addict the second that his mom was pregnant,
Or the young girl who was raped and stripped up, everything sacred.
Who now stands downtown walkin' on the block pacin' 

cause the only way she knows how to make it, is gettin' naked.
We don't want to face it,
And it being the fact that the government created the ghetto and gave it crack,
To oppress immigrants and blacks, and give 'em more of a set back.
Like the last 500 years wasn't enough to accomplish that.
Now look at the homeless rate, and tell me to my face the race,
Doesn't play an intricate part in your fate in the United States,
Now think about your home, and the place that you sleep,
And the homeless, who only have the concrete.

- Macklemore: City Don't Sleep