Superhero genre films are the Westerns genre films of our era

Keith Spencer, over at Salon.com, wants to justify his dislike of Superhero films in terms that should normally appeal to me.  Last year, he first claimed the films are bad for democracy, and now says the genre is somehow a reaction to neo-liberalism.  I admit I like his attack on corporations uber alles, and his one chart in his latest article at Salon.com, which is a snapshot of a larger animated chart from the Economic Policy Institute, shows a fairly direct correlation between workers' fortunes dropping and the decline of unions.  As I always say these days, I grew up in a union environment and then lived my adult life in a relatively non-union environment:  There is only one difference:  In the non-union environment, the boss keeps more of the money.  

Anyway, Mr. Spencer remains fundamentally wrong about Superhero films.  First, he sounds like a Stalinist philosopher demanding art be for politics' sake.  The first thing we have to remember when analyzing films is the artists' most important motto, that art be for art's sake.  That means, first off, artists must create art for themselves and their art should be about anything the artists want the art to be about.  If we are going to analyze art, it must be within the context of the art itself.  However, "art for art's sake" does not mean art is not divorced from the society in which it was created, and it is here that we can, in fact, analyze a film genre with a sociological and theological perspective, and to give the artist his or her voice in speaking out about his or her society, which may even include questioning the assumptions the artist himself or herself have made that were not conscious to the artist.  

Mr. Spencer is a bright and learned person, but he writes about Superhero films as if we have no reason to enjoy the films on their own terms and with no reason to consider the artistry of the films.  The difference between Mr. Spencer and me is that I believe we should first and foremost view the Superhero films as films, and then determine if there are societal messages within the films.  And the big disagreement we have is that, when he offers a sociological evaluation of the films, he misses the radicalism behind the dystopic visions that often accompany the films.

When we begin to evaluate Superhero films as a film genre, and seek a historical analogy within film subject matters, it becomes (or should become) immediately clear that Superhero films, particularly those of the last twenty years, are the Westerns of our time or era.  Some Western film stories were about traveling to places, and what happens on the way.  Others are about invaders who invade a place where the hero or heroes live.  And still other Westerns were allegories about different aspects of society.  One sees this in the Superhero genre as well.

When we talk sociology, politics, economics, philosophy, etc., we see Superhero films of the past nearly twenty years as often brilliant, and more often, radical critiques of our society.  Many of the Marvel Superhero films of the past two decades, for example, contain a persistent attack on the National Security State and invite the audience to consider the U.S. as the evil center of terrorism and inequality. The recent DC Universe films contain theological allegories, and ask us to question Western monotheism in particular.  This makes the Superhero genre superior, in my view, to Westerns because too often the U.S. Cavalry were the "good guys," "Indians" the "bad guys," and, for too many years, Western films were, wittingly or not, propaganda pieces justifying genocide of Native Americans.  And Western films reflected, without much remorse, the racism and sexism that existed in American society, and continued to exist even during the period film studios were producing and releasing Western genre films. Admittedly, however, when Westerns dealt with narratives of white settlers vs. white settlers, Westerns tended to become more profound and thoughtful about society, and dealt more compellingly with existential threats to communities.  In Superhero films, the existential threats are often global or threats that affect what we still call the "entire" universe.  

Mr. Spencer doubts we are in peak Superhero film.  His use of the word "peak" is a genuinely smart reference to the economic oriented debate over whether "we" have reached "peaks" in oil production.  For me, I agree with fracking enthusiasts who deny peak oil, but say to those enthusiasts, we still need to change to renewables and we should be looking to ban or severely limit fracking.  As for Superhero genre films, I think we are in peak Superhero film in one important respect:  As late Westerns like "Johnny Guitar," "The Searchers," and "Who Shot Liberty Valance?" turned the Western genre on their heads, and inward, as the Western film genre became so embedded within our culture, the Superhero genre has now also become embedded in our current culture, so we now see the Superhero genre film twisted on itself. Films such as "Deadpool" or "Guardians of the Galaxy" play off, and play with, the audience's understanding of Superhero narratives, tropes, and devices. Whether this means there will be a marked decline in attendance for Superhero films remains to be seen, but we do know Westerns faded by the mid 1960s as a film genre, and were largely undermined by cultural changes in U.S. society, culminating in the success of an anti-Western Western film, "Little Big Man." After seeing that film, who could watch John Wayne or Randolph Scott kill "Injuns" again without wincing or thinking about whether Native Americans were really the 'bad guys?"  I think, too, of the truly last great Westerns came nearly and over thirty years ago, which are "Unforgiven," which attacked the idealization of gunfighters, and "Silverado," which contained a critique of westerns papering over racism and sexism.  "Silverado" also sharpened the critique of the cattle rancher class as fundamentally evil--though "Cowboys and Aliens" is becoming intriguing enough to me to finally see...:).

Spencer's take on Superhero films as a threat to democratic values because the heroes are elite members of society is overstated because, sociologically, Captain America was a working class teen, and so is Spidey.  Hulk is a scientist who does not appear to have come from wealth or power, but was someone just so incredibly smart--and lucky to have been able to procure an education where he did not have large student loans, based upon his age.  Superman, Thor, Batman, Wonder Woman, and Black Panther come from literal royalty, and Iron Man from economic royalty, but each has observed, and remarked upon, the inequality within American society. Also, Iron Man has explicitly recognized the evil that is inherent in the American National Security State (All three "Iron Man" films posit the Chomskyian argument that the U.S. is the main society arming and creating terrorists throughout the world).  Black Panther needed his cousin to start to question racism elsewhere, but he still has a long way to go toward embracing democratic values--though I smell a Gorbachev scenario growing within him, as Black Panther, at the film's end, still believes he can control events as he opens up his society and begins to share technological wisdom.  Black Panther's cousin, to me, represents the most complex and ultimately sympathetic villain I have seen in the Superhero genre, as Magneto in X-Men was always in and out of being a villain.  The Black Panther cousin was played as a Thanos, but became Magneto by the time of his vanquishing (Did Magneto have white privilege in being allowed to stay alive?).   

As I have said in earlier blog posts, or elsewhere, Marvel films are sociological attacks on American society and American foreign policy, with the high bridge still being "Captain America: Winter Soldier," which presents a Chomskyian analysis of American foreign policy since the end of what many of us, not necessarily Chomsky, and certainly not Zinn, would call "The Good War," that is World War II.  The speech by the Nazi in the computer in "Winter Soldier" is as searing an indictment of the malevolence of American foreign policy as ever uttered in a Hollywood mainstream film.   "X-Men" films are brilliant allegories about being disabled, being gay, and being the Other within a society when one is in fact part of that same society.  And "X-Men: First Class" remains the greatest mainstream exposition of the Jewish philosophical response to the Holocaust I have ever seen or heard.  Magneto is Netanyahu seeking revenge, vengeance, and domination, while Dr. X is Alfred Adler asking for human connection and universal values of kindness and love.  Each wants to stop future Holocausts, but it is Magneto who is saying, "Get them before they get us."  Each represents the duality of human nature and the recognition, too, that we are more complicated than categories. And let us consider that Thor, in the most recent film of the series, comes to the realization a people are more important than a particular piece of land, which may be seen as an attack on the foundation of modern Zionism.

The recent Zack Snyder DC Universe films, as I have written above and elsewhere, are theological.  They are trying to come to grips with a world where gods and men interact. Most radically, the Zack Snyder films have not so subtly denigrated Western religious traditions, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.  Wonder Woman nearly scoffs at Western religion while otherwise largely ignoring it, and she is constantly referencing Zeus. Wonder Woman stands for the Greek myths as divine Truth, and Western religion as an exercise in delusion and foolishness.  "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice" remains the great film about superhero collateral damage, and one may truly begin to understand the brilliance of that narrative when first seeing the previous Superman film, "Man of Steel," and then the director's cut of "Batman v. Superman," which allows one to better understand Bruce Wayne's anger at Superman.  Zach Snyder's work will become a subject of future film analysts and philosophers as his DC Universe films--yes, give him the credit for "Wonder Woman" as he has a direct credit in the writing, and it is his universe in which she thrived for audiences--are horribly and wrongfully maligned.  The respect for Snyder's DC films will come.  Mark these words.

Spencer attacks corporate malfeasance in his articles, but seems to miss something that goes back to my point of understanding film as an art form. Want to attack corporate malfeasance, Mr. Spencer?  The cowardice and foolishness of Warner Bros. suits is a good place to start.  They never had faith in Zack Snyder and fell for the Russian-bot style attacks from Marvel fans, which, when combined with manner in which corporate media generally sneers at Superhero films, led the suits to fire Snyder.  This is a real shame, but again, Snyder will be vindicated in future decades, always assuming at least for the moment, human society's survival.

So should one read Mr. Spencer's article or articles?  I suppose so.  However, I am of the view that such attacks on the entire Superhero genre are misplaced.  I have my own criticisms within the genre, such as the moral failure to have Thor and Black Panther recognize they should end their monarchies, as they are feudal leftovers having no place in a modern society--hint, Star Wars fans, hint.  And I have not run out to see "Infinity War" from the Avengers as it seems like a messy narrative--The Daughter says "It starts in the middle and ends in the middle," and have not even seen "Black Panther" yet, deciding it is not so important whether I see it on a large screen or a television screen (still much larger than back in the day).  UPDATE: Saw it on streaming video and...wow!  It was brilliant, and I am now a major fan of Black Panther's cousin.  He deserved to live no matter how angry and bad he was in the early going.  His critique and development was almost pure Malcolm X and George Jackson.

I remain, however, a major fan of the film genre as it has developed since the late 1990s with the "X-Men" series.  I had no use for the earlier incarnations of Batman from the 1980s and 1990s as they struck me as dumb, and I found the comics difficult reading, preferring instead the so-called "underground" comic books, such as The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, and Robert Crumb.  I recall going to the second or third San Diego Comic Con around 1980 or 1981 and being disappointed that there was maybe one vendor who even sold such underground comics, with most of the comics being the superhero comics.  It is not that I think the Superhero comic books are dumb; it is only that I found them far less enjoyable to read on a sustained basis.  The films of the last twenty years remain compelling to me, however, and I feel they are great works of art in terms of their look, pacing, and writing, even before one gets to the sociological or theological analyses.  Young people today have it right, perhaps again, over their elders and those who write for corporate media.  These films are important milestones in American culture and should be exulted, not denigrated.  The Academy Awards voters should be ashamed of themselves for missing this genre. One need only look at the films which have been awarded Oscars in the past 20 years and ask, Really? The films you chose as "Best Films" are the ones we should watch in the future?  The failure to recognize the superhero films represents another massive elite failure, and symbolically speaks to the economic and political elite failures of our time.

Oh well.  We are arguing about taste at some level or another, but I do think there is something important to say and remember about Superhero films.  And if you think they are dumb, check yourself.  You have either not seen enough of them or you are not as smart as you think you are.  There, I said it.  And I end with an arrogance that may not be pretty, but still needed to be said when we see so many elite minds and people who should know better attacking the entire genre.

Drive by thoughts on the Korean leader summit

My headline for this news:

"Koreas come together, after realizing the United States continues to be run by imbeciles."  

My back of the napkin analysis:

Kim Jong Un was supposed to be the crazy guy.  I think Trump, considering his latest rant with his advisers, also known as "Fox and Friends," is perhaps the crazy guy. 

Still, Kim Jong Un is taking a big risk for his dictatorship here.  If he pursues and gains peace, he will no longer have the "scary monster" South Korea theme to keep North Korean people continually on edge so as to "justify" his dictatorial power system.  Kim seems to be doing a deKlerk or Gorbachev here, and we know what happened there from a dictator's standpoint. :)

Who knows where this goes, but at least right now it is promising.  For me, I recall my optimism after Rabin and Arafat shook hands after Oslo in 1993....and that promise of peace did not work out well.  However, the Northern Ireland resolutions have held up fairly well....Each of us may choose the historical analogy we wish to choose, but we should always remind ourselves that each historical episode also stands on its own, depending upon the serendipity of personalities at the moment. 

So, wait. It is economics (trade) and white nationalism?

So wait.  It IS about economics (trade deals) and white nationalism.  Folks who read this interview or take the time to read the study in full can ask themselves, Is it really speculation to suggest Bernie woulda won?

The funny part is the professor says American attitudes after 2008 hardened that it was the Democrats who were pro-trade, but that perception itself is wrong if we look at US Congressional representation.  Most Democrats opposed the TPP and most Republicans endorsed it.  Most Democrats were against the NAFTA and WTO regimes, but not enough to counter most Republicans and the sufficiently few pro-cororpate trade Democrats.   So where do people get the perception?  The national Democratic Party leaders, whether it is Clinton, Biden, Obama, Kerry, Kaine, Booker, or whoever cable news tells us are the "serious" Democratic Party leaders, are pro-corporate trade.  The corporate media systematically exclude the many, many Democratic Party congress people--start say, with Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); yes, Hillary fans, a woman--who have long been against the corporate trade deals.

When Trump came along in the 2016 primaries, the Republican leadership became very scared.  But the DNC and corporate media came to their rescue, setting up Trump as the preferred Republican candidate--gladly broadcasting his speeches for free air time--so that too many Democratic Party voters who were against the TPP themselves supported Hillary Clinton, the personification of  corporate trade deals for over twenty five years, in the primary.  It was a confluence of the DNC and corporate media pushing Democratic Party voters into a corner over cultural issues and lookism (I mean, let's face it, we all had conversations with Democratic Party voters, usually rich ones, who said Bernie did not look presidential, while Hillary was so familiar over decades, and personified what cable news would implicitly call a "serious" world leader.  And that was the snicker at CNN and MSNBC among the Hillary Rosen-Luke Russert coterie). Republicans, meanwhile, slowly but surely went for Trump--as Trump astutely manipulated the entire set of post Cold War Republican messages to his advantage during that primary season.  

I find it frustrating when people just shrug their shoulders and say, "We will never know if Bernie would have won."  That is simply a form of denial.  The point of "Bernie woulda won" is to make sure we don't offer up corporate trade Democrats as national standard bearers again.  

I think the professor and I would have a fairly deep conversation because I think she overstates her  research in concluding that being pro-immigration means one should be pro-corporate trade when one reads the last two responses to questions in this article.  I would like to see the study or studies showing how white nationalists voters in Canada are more pro-trade.  We already know she overinterpreted the feeling of Americans that Democrats are perceived to be pro-corporate trade and Republicans are anti-trade, when we know Democratic Party representation in Congress shows the opposite.  To me, her analysis lets corporate media propagating off the hook. In Canada, we recall Brian Mulroney, the Conservative, was pro-corporate trade, but he ended up out of power when his own constituents joined left and labor activists against the NAFTA type deals, though there were other issues including an economic downturn in Canada that hurt him badly when he was thinking of standing for re-election, and then decided not to do so. Here is an article showing how Mulroney is cozied up with the "Liberals" (these are more like the Clintonites, not Berniecrats, in Canada) defending the NAFTA. 

Oh well.  The evidence continues to accumulate, and it continues to show the DNC and pooh bahs who offer and shape opinion across cable news (from MSNBC to CNN to FoxNews and increasingly Sinclair Broadcasting) want to keep the Democratic Party national candidates firmly in the grasp of economic elites while the RNC has a white racist tweeter as leader, who keeps people diverted while he fills the swamp with even more swamp monsters dedicated to Corporations Uber Alles.

As Ollie said to Stan, "Well, Stanley, this is another fine mess you've gotten me into." Ollie represents the Republican leadership, while poor Stanley represents the Democrats.  It is the cable news narrative, right?

I blame Madison Avenue for Trump

I am not against this sociological theorizing, as in this Slate.com article from Harvard lecturer, Yascha Mounk, but I have another more fun theory:

For eighty years, Madison Avenue, the home of advertising agencies, and the people who truly taught us how to consume, had, as one of their "themes," the promotion of a new product with the "typical" New Yorker "speaks his (or now her) mind."  You know the ads' theme:

A new product is to be introduced.  The person with the new product walks down the Manhattan street and pulls over some guy (I am stopping with the or gal equivalence for a moment, so please bear with me)...

As I say, the fellow walks down the street with the new product, preferably something to eat, and pulls over a guy.  The fellow with the product says, "Please try this product, sir."  And the other guy looks at it, and says, "Ya know, dis don't look so good."

"Please try it," the fellow with the product says.

"Okay," the guy says, "but I ain't gonna like it!"  And then he takes a bite.  "Mmm, not bad, not too bad....ya know?"  And then, another bite, "Hey, ya know sump's, dis tastes pretty good.  Yeah, really good."  Takes another bite.  "Hey, this stuff's good!  I love it!"

Then, the fellow with the product turns to the camera--YOU--and says, "Yes, there it is, my friends.  This fella would never lie.  He speaks his mind, and you should try this  (new product), too!"  Fade to black or really the next ad.

New Yawkahs always tell the truth.

Sure.

Except, there's the old joke about people from Jersey City, which people from Jersey City tell about each other:  

"Hey, ya know when a guy from Jersey City is lying?"  

When?, you may ask.

Answer:  The Jersey City person puts his left hand over his heart, and puts up his right hand up as if he is going to take the oath in a courtroom, and says, "'Sweah to God, I'm telling the truth!'

See?  Jersey City-ans know.  And so do New Yawkahs.

Yup.  That's my theory, folks.  I think we have to be somewhat kind to the rest of the nation, particularly those in the South. They think New Yawkahs speak their minds, and, therefore, must be telling the truth every time.  Poor rest of America.  Trained for decades by hardcore advertising in that way.  The truth is, it's hard to get over that training.  

However, "Traitor Trump" may be just the right illuminative example to re-train America in making assumptions such as "New Yorkers speak their minds"....

The Nation fooled by a plaintiff side lawyer into publishing a misleading article about sexual harassment cases

The Nation got fooled, which is unfortunate.

The writer of this article, Rafia Zakaria, misleads, in my view, about the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions and motions for summary judgment.  If a woman plaintiff alleges in a civil complaint that she was harassed, and states basic facts to support it, even if those facts are totally uncorroborated by any witnesses, a motion brought pursuant to 12(b)(6) is to be denied.  The 12(b)(6) motion assumes the truth of the pleading, and it is up to the defendants (harasser and company) to prove, even if all of the allegations in the complaint are true, there can be no liability for one reason or another.  If a lawyer for the defendants cannot prove a compliant is invalid on the face of the complaint, the defendants' lawyer is wasting money and looking bad to the judge to file a 12(b)(6) motion.  The same with a motion for summary judgment under Fed Rule 56, which are expensive for both sides to prepare.  If the motion for summary judgment is denied, a plaintiff and her lawyer are often emboldened to increase their settlement demand--and with it, as noted below, the demand for the defendant to pay for the plaintiff's lawyer's attorneys fees and costs.  Contrary to the tenor of the article, it does not matter whether nobody else agrees with or corroborates the plaintiff woman who is claiming harassment.  The case will be able to go in front of a jury for trial, if the case does not otherwise settle. The case, without corroboration, may seem like a weak one, but it will, if the plaintiff's lawyer wants to, get in front of a jury, and that is also expensive for the defendant, very expensive, which makes a defendant think about settlement more and more.

The law used to say that it took two or more incidents to form a pattern for sexual harassment, but even that was watered down if there was a "hostile environment," which frankly can be easily manipulated by a plaintiff who may otherwise have no credibility-and please know, courts are not allowed to look at a plaintiff's credibility when ruling on a summary judgment motion and certainly not, at the beginning of a case, a 12(b)(6) motion.

Left out of the article is something that really drives settlements in cases, even when there is little reason to believe the plaintiff: One sided attorneys' fees awards.  See for example 42 USC 1988.  What I mean by one-sided is that the plaintiff's lawyers get all or most of their attorneys' fees paid by the defendants--yes, by the defendants--at the end of the trial if the plaintiff recovers even $1 (There could be a limit on the attorneys' fees recovery if the plaintiff recovers such a small amount or an amount lower than in a formal statutory offer of taking judgment that a defendant would formally agree to pay--but even then, the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees recovery could easily be high five figures and low to mid six figures).  Worse, there is something called a "lodestar" or multiplier effect that may be used.  The multiplier can really be a problem for defendants faced with such suits.

Worse, judges, who often come from big time firms or DA offices, have no idea and do not care about the inflated plaintiff attorney bills that are literally made up out of thin air, $600 or $700 an hour they will claim--even if on contingency agreements where there is no hourly rate stated nor would there be any rate stated--while the defendants' lawyers are charging say $300 an hour at most, and often less.  So if the writer of this article thinks the defense firm will file motions that won't win, and that only increase the plaintiff's attorneys' demands for money for themselves, the writer, Rafia Zakaria, has a very different experience than mine.  

Oh, and if the defense side gets a defense verdict, you may think, Oh the defendants recover their attorneys' fees from the plaintiff, right?  Wrong.  The only way a defendant recovers attorneys' fees against the plaintiff is if there is substantial proof of a frivolous complaint, which is more rare than seeing one of those big cats that are nearly extinct in China.  It is almost a unicorn, though one may find a few cases over the past thirty years of jurisprudence.  But trust me, it is really rare in practice.  The best I ever won for a defendant who won a verdict in a sex discrimination case against a woman plaintiff was $40,000 in costs (expert witness fees, costs of filing suit, costs to pay court reporters for depositions and at trial, and payment of jury fees; those are "costs" separate from attorneys' fees), and he did put a lien on the woman's house.  But again, that is really, really rare.

At the end, all the writer of The Nation article seems to want--certainly not a change in the one-sided attorneys' fees provisions*--is strict liability for managers who sexually harass.  That is the law for most civilized states already, I have to say.  We (damn, can't really say "we" anymore...) have lived in CA with that for over 20 years.  I am a bit surprised to think it is not the law in some jurisdiction in the US.  It is certainly the law from what I currently understand in New Mexico... 

Oh well. The Nation got fooled by a plaintiff side lawyer who wrote an article using a lot of progressive sounding language, but did not do a good job of explaining how the legal process and system actually works in these workplace cases.  Still, we may wonder, if this is the law, why is all this stuff coming out of Hollywood and DC just now? 

The answer is pretty straightforward:  Corporate America has long had to live under the MeToo movement and has been suitably punished when guys act out.  However, in Hollywood and in DC, the drive for power is so competitive and so strong, women either went along or put up with such behavior to get ahead, and the guys at the higher levels continued to think they were impervious to these laws.  It took a cultural change, and this is where I agree with Catherine McKinnon and The Nation article writer.   Where there also continues to be abuse is in small businesses where women often do not know they really do have rights, and if there is anything stopping them once they know their rights, it is the sad fact that plaintiffs' lawyers--who are, after all, in business--find the cases are not worth much on the lost earnings side.  

Still, most of corporate America has long learned sexual harassment, discrimination, and whistle blower cases are very expensive, embarrassing to the corporation, and need to be avoided at all times if possible.  They have a team of Human Resources professionals who tend to be pretty pushy on the execs and managers to stay in line.  It does not mean nothing occurs, or little slights don't occur, but if someone pushes back, it can mean a hard time and expensive proposition for the company.**

* I get why, in the end, there are one-sided fee provisions in the anti-harassment and anti-discrimination statutes.  If there were two way attorney fee provisions, the companies and their lawyers would overwhelm and threaten plaintiffs because of the inequity of the power of companies over individuals.  What I have objected to, in a lonely battle, is the way judges inflate the fees for plaintiffs' lawyers instead of trying to compare what defense side lawyers are being paid, as different areas of law have different hourly rates, with patent/trademark lawyers tending to charge the most, for example (I have seen $1,000 an hour for such lawyers).  That is a losing battle, however, as we have had thirty plus years of jurisprudence on this and I know judges who have tried to stem the tide, only to be reversed on appeal where plaintiffs' side lawyers recover sometimes millions of dollars in fees in hotly contested cases.  It is why it is, again, dumb for defense lawyers to file motions that won't win.

** I often "joke" with corporate execs and say, the lawsuit is the cost of them not having a union. If there was a union, there would be an internal grievance procedure that would seem more fair to most employees than an H.R. investigation, and it is hardly any cost to the company to follow the union grievance procedure, and chances are, the truth will come out early and the company can deal with the situation one way or the other.  Also, employees in a union environment are far more likely willing to talk and back the employee if they believe her (most often her in a sexual harassment case).  But we know why bosses will take the occasional lawsuit:  unions would mean sharing overall economic power.  So, corporate execs, this Bud's for you, as the saying goes.