Heroes write the History

Nearly a year ago, I wrote a post defining and explaining Nostalgia which largely criticizing the media industry's explicit exploitation of the past. Even in that post, I acknowledged that not all use of 'the past' was Nostalgic, and not necessarily bad. Successful shows like Mad Men (AMC) and Boardwalk Empire (HBO) or movies such as Lincoln (2012) and Charlie Wilson's War (2007) do rely on audience's idealized preconceptions of the past, but not in the same way as Man of Steel (2013) or The Carrie Diaries (The CW). The latter use Nostalgia to tell the same story while the former use History to tell a new one. Revisiting History within the context of New American Mythology reveals shifting perspectives of the past while offering direction to our present lives.

We all know the general story of Lincoln, the Civil War, and Emancipation. In any historical retelling of the story, we know how it's going to end (a bullet, Northern victory, and segregation). So why recreate it- to simply to relive our glory days? No, that's Nostalgia. We use History to help understand present issues, and look to our heroes for guidance. Take the 1988 t.v. miniseries, Gore Vidal's Lincoln.

Skip to: 5:03

 Admittedly, Vidal wanted to illustrate the founding fathers as less than heroic. The television series shocks audiences with a racist Lincoln in order to nudge audiences into considering how far society had come, even from desegregation two decades earlier.  What may have seemed radical ideas in the 60's were just common thought, especially in light of recent confirmation of humans as originating in Africa. The morally questionable honest Abe was not meant to glorify his personality or accomplishments (Nostalgia), but give a new perspective on the past (History).

Spielberg's Lincoln, is much like Vidal's in mannerisms, but he reclaims an untouchable aura of heroics (albeit not to the point of romanticism). What makes this version of History particularly interesting, is the "gritty" politics Spielberg demonstrated. Perhaps our previous idea of the 1860s included a virtuous political system that actually worked. The fact that Lincoln had to wheel and deal not only made History more real, but it also made me feel better about the current state of Washington.

Other Historical fictions in American Mythology today reflect similar sentiments. Instead of the idyllic portraits of great men that we find in textbooks (or even comic books), we see the complex interactions between individuals who live in a morally grey zone. By toning down the rose tint, we can see beyond the nation's grand rise to power and acknowledge that at no point have times really been easy.

HBO's Boardwalk Empire takes place in the roaring twenties, when the 18th Amendment essentially restricted alcohol to a point where bootleggers were working in a free-market system. This allowed them to to collect great wealth, obtain great power, and occasionally accomplish great things. However, the actions various gangsters take to gain or retain their greatness/monopolies follow neither general idea of a 'good' man nor the idealized free-market system.

(A meeting of all the East coast bosses)

The main character, Enoch Thompson (aka Pasty Breadstick in a Bowtie), constantly re-balances his political and economic powers in order to create an image of a great man. In this scene particularly, he decides its better to deny his business partners booze (limit the free market) in exchange for a 'prettier' public face. Rosetti (the angry one) acts in the opposite manner, disregarding Thompson's overall well-being for greed. Audiences know Enoch Thompson as not the most morally sound individual, but at least he has some sense of gentlemanly character. Or not. Which may be the most surprising aspect of the show. Despite wanting to like any one of the characters, audiences must see them as willful participants in a corrupted system that operates under a facade of glamour.

In this way History surpasses Nostalgia in its message to the masses. Instead of longing for yester-year, the former sends a message of 'things can get better'. People can change, circumstances can alter. It's up to the hero to decide whether he or she will give up or move forward.

Que Donald Draper, Mad Men Season 1, Episode 1

Mad Men has largely been about the fall of the All-American hero. Audiences see Don as a flawed individual who hides his despair and vulnerability from the people around him. Throughout the series such deception drive him to act immorally, without regarding his actions as harmful to himself or others. In the above scene, he casually says he does not believe in the tomorrow. We know that this isn't the truth, and not just because we know the bomb didn't go off. He simply fears the past, choosing to ignore the gritty details. If you've watched the latest season, then hopefully you can compare this scene to the final one in the last episode. Don now looks to the past, not in fear of its consequences nor shame of its contents, but with a sense of pride and purpose. That is where he is from. From all that shit, he became...

Donald Fucking Draper

We'd prefer to hide away the dirty bandages and dead bodies of History, but they describe more authentically than the glorified poems written after the battle. Americans want to acknowledge the grime under their heroes' nails, because that's proof that they weren't divinely designated as saviors to society. Is the American Dream not to achieve greatness despite through equal opportunity, no matter your race, creed, gender, orientation, social status, etc? Our heroes must live with flaws in a past which is realistic. Americans look at History not to show off our grandiose rise to power, but to understand that despite whatever shit storm we're going through now, we will not only survive, but emerge [hopefully] as a better society..

The Man Inside the Can : Iron Man 3

Most of the hype surrounding Iron Man 3 (Marvel Studios, 2013) related to Robert Downey Jr.'s transformation into Tony Stark and China's enthusiasm for the American action films. I wasn't following in closely because I assumed it would be another explosion sequel that found some random Middle-Eastern villain to once again put the world at jeopardy and boost Tony Stark's ego. If we were lucky, there'd be a romantic scene and some chuckles.

Hah! Wasn't I surprised. Iron Man 3 is a well-crafted visual novella, complete with character development, plot twists, romance, motivated events, and, most of all, real-life situations that drive the storyline. It has less New American Mythology than most comic-book movies, but it excels at using monomyth to communicate a variety of society's concerns without being too heady or heavy. Good job director/writer Shane Black, writer Drew Pearce, and everyone else involved its making.

If you havn't already, I highly recommend you GO SEE THE MOVIE. Also, it's the only RealD movie I've seen that wasn't distractingly 3D. It enhanced the experience even.

Now, onto the post. I could writer several essays about Iron Man 3, but chose to follow Tony Stark's transformation along the hero epic cycle. I encourage you to think about the socio-political and culture implications of the movie on your own time.

Phrases in parenthesis that may not make sense refer to the hero epic cycle.

**Spoilers Beyond This Point**
That being said, the post assumes you've seen the movie.

The traumatized Tony Stark has lost the public cool he exudes in previous films; he does not go out to bask in the glory of his victory, nor does he gloat about it to his friends. An aloof hermit that can barely maintain his relationship with Pepper Potts, Stark pours himself into the 'hobby' of creating more suits. The charm and humor remain within him, but with a considerably more defensive flair.

Something is wrong with our ultra-cool super-hero. Much like Django Unchained, the director Shane Black eases audiences into the hero's perspective, rather than blatantly giving a name to whats going on. In doing so, the stigma and assumptions often attached to PTSD becomes less of focus, allowing audiences to better understand the character's struggle, not his disease. So while Pepper, Happy, and Col. Rhodes keep pressing Tony to pay attention to other matters, the audience sees how it's not as easy as "getting over it."

"Getting over it," is what drives the plot. In order to re-assimilate into culture and reconnect with loved ones, Tony Stark must redefine himself as a man, not a man-in-a-can. 

Tony Stark's identity is closely tied to the Iron Man suit, but unlike the suit he can, and nearly did, die. Shaken, he puts his efforts into making suits of all kinds. Of course, multiplying the number of suits does not help his situation, but drives him further away from society and loved ones. In the first Iron Man, Stark rockets over to Afghanistan to take out some low-level baddies just because. Now, when a mysterious explosion occurs and a maniacal terrorist claims there will be more, Stark seems to just panic and retreat even further into his fortress. (Refusal of the Call) This is where the testing of the hero comes in. The 'forces that be' remove Tony from the safety of familiar territory into a place where he is more vulnerable, but closer to his true identity.

The attack at the Chinese Theater first awakens Stark to action. Rather than going out and actually killing Mandarin however, he retreats into his Malibu mansion/Tower and relies on it/his suit to protect him and Pepper.  The second test, the attack on the mansion, forces Stark to mobilize. He encases Pepper in his suit, knowing it better protects her if she's in it than if he was in it covering her. Once he gets the suit back, its unreliability forces him to use brainpower over tech-weaponry. It also puts him dangerously close to death. Luckily J.A.R.V.I.S. (the Supernatural Aid) kicks in and saves Stark. At this moment, Stark crosses the threshold and begins his journey.

Largely without a suit, a supernatural aid, or any connection with his known world, Stark really is in a mystical land. With the help of a regular human kid, he uses good old fashioned sleuthing to find out whodunnit and howdunnit. Yes, JARVIS pinpoints the Mandarin's location, but it's Stark who creates a low-tech non-defensive arsenal to infiltrate the palace (Belly of the Whale). Here, Stark not only solves the mystery, but finds the solution to his psycological problem (the Boon): he doesn't need the suit to be a hero. In the conversation between Maya and Stark (The Meeting with the Goddess), Stark himself voices the knowledge that will free him from his trauma: he needs to hold onto his "Moral Psychology" and not forget why he started this Super-Hero thing. It's not about the theatrics or fame. Just as Killian doesn't need a cape to be a villain, Stark doesn't need the suit to be a hero.

Of course, Stark must return to his world with this knowledge in order to save himself. Killian hinders this psychological return when shows Pepper in pain and when he kills Maya (Apotheosis), creating a sense of helplessness/loss of identity that is necessary for his eventual rebirth.

The rest of the movie is Stark rebuilding himself has Iron Man. His escape from the palace involves faulty Mark 42, that keeps him from blasting off into heroics allowing him to slow down and think through a plan. The Barrel of Monkeys scene allows Stark to continue towards Pepper, while saving innocent people in a decidedly heroic fashion, regaining his confidence. In addition, the suit's destruction at the end of the scene shows the suit's vulnerabilities, while alerting the audience to Stark's strengthened psyche.

Reach out, he can't do it alone.

In the final fight sequence, Stark calls all the suits to action while he focuses on saving Pepper. Didn't quite catch the gravity of that? The suits act as offensive weapons while Stark plays a defensive role of saving the thing he loves most (opposite of what happened at the Malibu mansion). (Col. Rhodes doesn't get a suit for the same reason- he must make his way to the president and escape all with a defensive mentality.) When Stark does jump in a suit, his plans to use it tend to fail: He can't lift the debris off Pepper without killing her; Killian traps Stark in it; After slicing of Killian's arm with the suit, the whole floor caves in; The point where a suit would be most useful, Stark can't get one because all of them are fighting and therefore he can't run to or reach Pepper in time; The suit becomes a hindrance during the fight sequence with Killian. Even when Stark finally lets go of the armor by encasing Killian, he doesn't win, just creates a big explosion. The suit is not a hero.

It takes Pepper's rebirth and near second death for Stark to finally remember what it is to be a hero. The suit attacks Pepper, exactly the opposite of what Stark designed it to do. Pepper, in complete bad-ass fashion, takes down the suit, then uses it to destroy Killian, saving Stark,  and becomes the hero.

She was already a hero.

What does that mean exactly? Tony Stark doesn't need the suit. He needs Pepper (i.e. human relationships); she is a force more powerful than machine. Without her, and the other people he cares for, he would not be Iron Man; he would be a deranged engineer without a moral psycology. Being a super-hero isn't about the indestructible "false-faces" that the public sees, but defending what you believe in.

Stark destroys his fleet of autonomous suits not just to make Pepper happy, but because he realizes that he, a human being, is Iron Man not the suits. He is not a 'god' whose identity is tied to a super-persona. Unlike Thor or Capt. America, he is a vulnerable, flawed individual. Stark no longer fears his mortality, but understands it as an integral part of his self that brings him closer to the people in his life, and thereby makes his heroics more meaningful. What's more, the people around him recognize his vulnerability, know he can't do it all, and are still willing to say "I got you." They don't expect him to be a super-hero/god, but a man.

Stark's Return (to the realm of mortality)

I welcome your comments below.

Don't be Oblivious: The Obvious Myth in Oblivion

[This post has spoilers.

Really quickly, where did Spring go? We've started the Summer Blockbuster season, and I havn't posted in over a month! Mostly because there wasn't much interesting going on. Besides the ends of several comedy TV series... ]

Okay, who though Oblivion (Universal Pictures, 2013) was going to be another weird Tom Cruise movie? I certainly did. Cruise is generally not an actor I follow, because I associate him with the 80s and 90s (and Scientology). Really that's not fair. His career doesn't have the normal dips and turns as other action movie stars; he's consistently made three star and above quality films since the start of his career, and the only year 21st century he didn't have a movie coming out was 2009, which is kind of excusable since he had two movies come out in 2008.

When I heard Oblivion was "actually really good," I was skeptical. Through a coin-toss I saw it instead of The Place Behind the Pines. Good choice. It contains a lot of New American Mythology themes and motifs. The following is a quick rundown of these. I thought the plot was fairly obvious, but if you're wanting to keep the movie's plot twists a surprise, don't continue to read, particularly the ones marked with ***. They're all kind of spoilers though.

Basically, I've highlighted how Oblivion uses the motifs in New American Mythology. The terms are not literal representations, but act more as metaphors. Brush up on the terminology by clicking on "Lexicon" above. Use this post as a way to better understand the Myth, and how it influences our culture.

Astronaut - Jack Harper, the main character, lives in isolation with his work and love partner, Victoria. He repairs drones which guard saltwater collectors. The saltwater will be converted into energy for humanity's exodus to Titan. Jack uses his high and low-tech know how to keep the drones running and protect the human race. ***We find out Jack Harper was actually an astronaut in his previous life. He and a crew were going to Titan to assess if human could live there; when their mission changes he chooses to pursue the danger alone (with Victoria) rather then put the rest of his crew in danger. Jack's final sacrifice at the movie's end, solidifies his mythological Astronaut status.

Cowboy - Jack acts directly against his orders multiple times, mostly on gut reactions. His collection of various human objects connects him to his true human self. His "lonesome" rides in the helicopter and fondness for his motorcycle are not unlike a man in the desert on a horse. 

***Zombie - Jack's previous incarnations followed orders, blindly killing off most of humanity. It sounds like they traveled in hordes, acting senselessly en mass. Victoria remains a Zombie, blindly following her programing to her demise, despite the evidence in front of her. Also, Jack dies and 'comes back to life' through Tech 52 in order to live happily ever after.

Illumination!

 

Black - Of course Morgan Freeman plays the Black god (of war)! In this narrative, Malcolm Beech leads humanity's last stand. Not only does he come up with the strategy for taking down TET, he's the one who sees Jack as the key to their salvation and shows him the Road to self-discovery. ***His death marks the end of the war, a passing of an era. With his and Jack's death, the world can be reborn.

Girl - Victoria tries to break away from the 'system' that holds her, but in the end she cannot side with Jack. She finds the small plant he gives her abhorrent, because it may ruin their chances of going to Titan with the rest of humanity. Really, it shows her lack of humanity and her assimilation into the TET's false reality.

Amazon - Julia, a 'Russian' cosmonaut, is only an Amazon when compared to Victoria. Overall she's a weak female character, but does hold important knowledge that allows Jack to free his mind, proving herself not to be a threat to Jack and superior to Victoria.

Scavs in the concept art from the unpublished (non-existent) graphic novel Oblivion was based on.
Illustration by  Andrée Wallin

 

Aliens - The Scav are Jack's main threat. They attack the drones, but without any real purpose. Victoria ponders why they would try to destroy the drones, why they would send an off-world signal, and why they are there at all. They are irrational, threatening creatures. (Or are they...?)

The West - Jack's excursions in the the wastelands gives him the freedom to explore the world around him without the rules of the Sky Tower. He can fix drones with gum, pick up curious objects, and wear a Yankee cap, all of which don't follow protocol. The potential run into the dangerous Scavs doesn't deter him from the potential of finding something new. Additionally, his (Rocky Mountain) retreat is an eden free from TET's (society's) prying eyes.

***Space - TET, which exists in space, is Jack and Victoria's source of information, their salvation (to Titan), their creation (via cloning), and their destruction (drones). On the flip side of the coin, Jack must enter TET's realm in order to save humanity, recreate himself, and destroy the threat.

***The City - TET supposedly holds most of the human race, waiting on a few techs to return before blasting off into Space. However, it turns out to be the lack of humanity rather than its salvation. TET programs Jack and Victoria to despise the past human life. Victoria especially follows TET's orders, fearing she'll lose her spot to Titan while not realizing she's lost her humanity.

Nostalgia - Jack's fascination with artifacts and history goes beyond topical interest. He collects small items and arranges them lovingly in his cottage. They remind him of the past glory of humanity, whereas Victoria sees them as radioactive remenants of war.

***The Road - After meeting Morgan Freeman's character, Jack must take a journey of self discovery. He starts out on a bike and drives to the Empire State building, where he finds his other half. He then returns to the Sky Tower, where he must destroy his past beliefs/self. Then, he goes through an hazardous journey across the radiation zone and meets his true self. This journey gives him the strength and conviction to save humanity.
 
 ***The Tower - 1) TET, a tower in the sky, supposedly awaits to deliver humanity to Titan and save all of mankind. However, we find out that it's not the salvation of mankind, but its destruction. This technological entity that Jack and Victoria believe holds the entire world has destroyed it. 2) The Empire State Building holds the key to Jack's humanity; his memories of the tower remain, and it's where his memories return to him. Before his memories return, the tower signifies the destruction of his past, and (literally) signals for its return. 3) The Sky-Tower (home-base) protects Jack and Victoria from Scavs and radiation. It's how they can live in such a hostile environment. However it also shelters them from the truth, preventing Victoria particularly from reconnecting to her original self.

At the Tower, all is made clear.

 There you go folks. Now stop saying I'm making this shit up! The terms may be outlandish, but sometimes we only notice the extremes.

Comment below!

"Reach for the Sky!"

Stephen Colbert had actor Tom Hanks on his show the other day. The skit features trick-or-treaters showing off the diversity of heroic characters the actor has portrayed (while plugging Cloud Atlas where Hanks plays multiple characters). It was a fantastic example of New American Mythology on several levels. First, both the real person and the characters have become icons of American culture. Everyone recognizes the names Tom Hanks, Woody, and Forrest Gump and views them as separate icons. This is different than  Will Ferrell characters for example. People recognize Ferrell as an iconic actor, but he is not separate from his characters- instead its Ferrell as racecar driver, Ferrell as man-child, Ferrell as a news anchor. (There are exceptions of course, such as Buddy the Elf.) For Hanks, both being an icon and portraying/creating icons means he has a strong presence in New American Mythology in both the past an present.

An artwork by street artist Tom Hanksy
(as in Tom Hanks + Banksy)

Because of his pantheon of characters, Hanks' mythic presence reaches all types of people regardless of the genre preference, age, gender, and race. He appeals to everyone, allowing him to explore, perpetuate, or change New American Mythology with broader strokes than a single movie, show, or character could do on its own. People pay attention to what he does.

Which leads to the second point: Hank has the ability to influence New American Mythology's direction in the future. Hank has taken advantage of this through his recent roles which tend to convey a wholesome, positive message or somehow educate the audience. That is not to say his character in Philadelphia (Tristar Pictures, 1993) for example didn't do that. Rather, Hanks now seems to consciously create/seek roles that enlightens audience with morals or history. Specifically: Charlie Wilson's War (Universal, 2007), The Pacific* (Dreamworks SKG, HBO Films, 2010) as narrator and producer, Extremely Loud Incredibly Close* (Paramount Pictures, 2011), and Cloud Atlas* (Cloud Atlas Production Company,  2012). Of course, to fund such projects (and keep his status as mythic icons) Hanks still acts in movies like The Polar Express* (Castle Rock Entertainment, 2004) and Angels and Demons* (Columbia Pictures, 2009).

I found Polar Express to be on the edge of the uncanny valley.

Not that either category is more influential or better than the other. Take The Da Vinci Code (Columbia Pictures, 2006); A lone man (Robert Langdon) must solve a mystery to prove himself innocent, and in that process discovers the Vatican's secret. *Spoiler* The secret is that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a daughter who would have been the 'true heir' of Christianity. Of course the patriarchal system of the Vatican found this terrible and stopped it. The movie critiques Catholicism, patriarchy, and authority as a whole while questioning the purpose of iconography that perpetuates certain ideals (i.e.Why do we revere da Vinci's deteriorating painting, Last Supper?). Larry Crowne (Universal Pictures, 2011) on the other hand is a more encouraging movie, where instead of falling into depression after losing everything, the main character seizes the day and goes back to college. A very feel good, happy movie that advises people to turn negatives into positives, but it's really not a reality shattering message.

So what does this all really mean? Tom Hanks' work reveals New American Mythology as spanning the past, present, and future on multiple fronts, influencing how Americans see and react to the world around them. The following character analysis shows that Hanks chooses roles that emphasize that all individuals can succeed, no matter what skills they have.

An Astronaut, Cowboy, and Zombie:

Forrest Gump (Paramount Pictures, 1994) - Forrest is a Zombie in the best way possible. He lacks rationality, is unthinking, acts out of compulsion, and has no real need for purpose in life. All these things of course make him a great football player, soldier, ping-pong player, and runner. His selfless nature often puts him in dangerous and inadvisable situations while his impassive personality allows him to not be governed by traditional wants and desires (i.e. money, fame, sexual conquest, etc). He is a Zombie. No arguing.

Apollo 13 (Universal Pictures, 1995) - Jim Lovell is a real figure in American History. Tom Hanks/This movie turned him into a real figure in American Mythology. Lovell is the most Astronaut of astronauts to ever grace the silver screen. He is rational, empathetic, and calm throughout the movie, despite his dangerous situation. And, of course, he placed himself in a situation (going to the moon) that he knew could go very wrong, just to better American's knowlegdge/image.

Toy Story (Pixar Animation Studios, 1995) - Woody is a not a Cowboy, but an Astronaut. He is rational, looks out for others, and willing to risk his happiness for others. The closest Woody comes to becoming a Cowboy is worrying about his position as leader of the toys when Buzz comes around. So when the doll says "Reach for the Sky!," he's not enforcing western law, but telling you to set your aims higher.

[Tom Hanks doesn't really play Cowboy characters, with perhaps the exceptions of Jimmy Dugan in A League of Their Own (Columbia Pictures Corporation, 1992), Joe Fox in You've Got Mail (Warner Bros., 1998), and Michael Sullivan in Road to Perdition* (Dreamworks SKG, 2002). This trend continues in the 21st century, unless you want to count...]

Cast Away (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp, 2000) - Chuck Noland whose journey transforms him from a Zombie to a Cowboy and/or Astronaut. He begins as a Zombie- focusing on his job to get money, despairing at his situation, and hoping someone else saves him. Eventually he learns that he must fend for himself, fight to live, like a proper Cowboy in a purgatory West. However, one could also argue that he is an Astronaut, living in isolation and relying only on himself to survive trying to find the truth of himself in purgatory West. Even the movie's end could be argued either way- is he a Cowboy living on his instincts, going wherever the wind blows him, or is he an Astronaut journeying into the great unknown, searching for the mysterious Truth.

Shenanigans in The Terminal

The Terminal (Dreamworks SKG, 2004) - Viktor Navorski is a Brown. I wanted to include this movie, despite its relatively bad reviews to show that Hanks does not always stick to the main archetypes. Navorski not an isolated Astronaut who uses rationality to fight his situation. He is not a Cowboy who would have just busted out of there. He might be a bit of Zombie who only follows the rules, but he is a bit too compassionate, helpful, and resourceful to really fit in that archetype. Navorski, an Eastern European, has no power (politically, sexually, and seemingly socially). However, he still turns his situation into a positive experience helping his fellow man [maybe he is an Astronaut].

I could do this all day with Hank's films. I could go in depth to every one of them (especially the Toy Story franchise), but there are so many it might get boring for you.  However, feel free to leave your own observations, questions, and comments below. 

With that I'll leave you with an Astronaut Tom Hanks quote:

"I love what I do for a living, it's the greatest job in the world, but you have to survive an awful lot of attention that you don't truly deserve and you have to live up to your professional responsibilities and I'm always trying to balance that with what is really important."

----------------------------------------------------


*I have not seen these movie, so my analysis may not be correct

Changing Shades of Brown

I want to discuss the Brown, because I believe this archetype is morphing. And in an odd way. Previously I believed the Brown were "non-Anglo foreigners who do not pose any sort of threat. Socially, politically, and sexually inferior to their black or white counterparts, browns often appear as comic-relief" namely Hispanics, but could include any non-Anglo character.

For example, the very entertaining movie Moulin Rouge! (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp, 2001)* has five prominent male characters: Christian, The Duke, Harold Zidler, Toulouse-Lautrec, and The Unconscious Argentinean. (Okay the Argentinean isn't very prominent, but he sings a song).  You'll note that the first three actors listed are of Anglo descent (Scottish, Australian, and English) while the last two are not (Colombian and Polish). Yes, the characters of Zidler, Toulouse, and possibly the Duke are French but what counts are visual cues and accents. We perceive the main influential/manipulating characters (Christian, the Duke, Zidler) as Anglo, while the side characters (who still play a role, just not active ones) as non-Anglo. Toulouse and the Argentinian never threaten Christian's chances with Satine, and only act as advisers/friends.

[*Moulin Rouge! is listed as both a American and Australian film on imdb.com; I'll let you decide if this is allowed in the New American Mythology cannon.]

Besides obvious 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male' dominance that has pervaded American culture since its founding (by WASPM), I believe that kind of Brown existed for several reasons.  First, the 20th Century was dominated not just by America, but the United Kingdom, Germany, and the USSR, and after World War II, to just America and USSR. Which means those 'other' countries (i.e. Mexico, China, Iraq, India, etc) aren't of too much concern. Eastern Europeans and other communist countries (non-Anglo countries), unfortunately, were the enemy and therefore characterized as impotent savages.

He looks just like a Wildman
And by Wildman I mean this guy

Next, the United States won the Cold War, and not just against the USSR. Communism proved to be inferior to capitalism in Latin-America, Asia, Eastern Europe, and vicariously parts of the Middle East. The communist aligned nations were riddled with general instability and lack of infrastructure that stalled economic growth and political development.

Finally, the 9/11 attacks brought a crises of faith for American citizens. They questioned their supremacy, their dominance, and thought that maybe they weren't as potent as they believed. What's more, China and India's econmies and populations burgeoned, taking with it American jobs and investments. In the U.S., Latin-Americans and other other non-Anglo-Americans began to develop stronger presence, voicing concerns of discrimination in politics, the media, and the larger communities. In the first decade of the twenty-first century Americans sensed the world shifting away from WASP dominated culture.  However, the media decided to reassure the public that the 'foreign' invasion was benign with characters like the Argentinean or Toulouse-Lautrec, Fez in That 70's Show, or Oscar in The Office.

Cece in New Girl (Fox, 2011)
The powerful, confidant, sexy best friend of Jess.

However, I believe this is no longer the case. Foreigners have become stronger, smarter, and sexier. Maybe it just took a decade for the media to catch up to people's beliefs. Or maybe the recession has disillusioned those who had clung to the 20th Century. The 'Other' are no longer just the backward folk who live on the fringes of society. They are, in fact, real people, doing real work, with real lives, real culture, and real opinions...

...which may differ from the 'majority's' in good and bad ways. Now we see non-Anglo transitioning from the background and emerging as a part of American society. American culture processes this change in various ways. The conflicts between the past perspectives and present projections surface in quite interesting ways.

Perhaps the more familiar example of such conflicting ideas is in The Big Bang Theory (CBS, 2007 - ) with the Koothrappali siblings. Raj exhibits the old perceptions: he's inept with women, is a sidekick (to the sidekick), and has sexually ambiguous moments. Overall, rather submissive. Priya on the other-hand gets pick of the guys, is a self-possessed woman (separate from both the girls and the boys), and does not hide her sexuality. Overall, rather normal (compared to depictions of WASPM). And there's the odd part- the rise of the 'other' in America Culture comes in the form of a woman (distinctly not a Girl). Other examples include, Gloria from Modern Family (ABC, 2009), Dr. Cristina Yang from Grey's Anatomy (ABC, 2005), Miranda from The Dark Knight Rises (Warner Bros. Productions, 2012), and Neytiri from Avatar (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporations, 2009).

Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Strong non-Anglo in American Culture women aren't limited to fiction.

Why this is...?  It might be an attempt to dis-empower non-Anglo by using a 'weak' symbol. It might be a carry over from Orientalism, where viewers sexualize the exotic 'other'. It might be a way to soften the  integration of non-Anglo into American culture. Of course the male 'other' does appear at times, but largely as a Brown, the inferior, or as an Alien, the unintelligible/irrational threat. We'll just have to wait and see how this new archetype integrates into the larger mythology, and how it effects American's perceptions of non-Anglos. Who knows, maybe Puerto Rico will become a state sooner than we expected.

Brown

• Chang Community (NBC, 2009) - Mostly just strange. If he was more powerful he'd be an Alien
• Abed Community (NBC, 2009 ) - Again, really strange. No sexual motivations
• Mr. Chow The Hangover (Warner Bros. Pictures, 2009) - Although he causes trouble, he isn't a real threat.
• Tom Haverford Parks and Recreation (NBC, 2009) - He started out as just a Brown in a greencard marriage, and although he's developed into a more influential character, he's not really all that important.  
• Borat Borat (Four by Two, 2006) - Sacha B. Cohen played on American's perceptions of non-Anglo to create a very convincing Brown character.

Alien

• Bane The Dark Knight Rises (Warner Bros. Pictures, 2012) - subservant to Miranda
• Red Skull Captain America: The First Avenger (Paramount Pictures, 2011) - He's Russian
• Matthew Bascalli (the Art Teacher) Parenthood (NBC, 2010) - Sleeps with Grandma!
• Gustavo/Gus (Pollos Hermanos owner) Breaking Bad (AMC, 2008) - Despite his controlled facade, Gus' actions are not the most predictable, nor are any of the other Latino characters'.

Ambigous/Transitional

• Oscar The Office (NBC, 2005 ) - Gay, and not a power player BUT he is having relations with Angela's husband. 
• Ann Perkins Parks and Recreation (NBC, 2009) - She's more of a Girl, but she is racially ambiguous, and has gained power through the series.
• Most Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson movies - With the exceptions of The Mummy Returns The Rock plays characters that aren't neccisarily Browns or Aliens, just traditionally Anglo archetypes. 
• Jacob in Twilight series - He doesn't end up with the 'heroine', but he's not powerless either.

Has anyone seen Puss In Boots (Dreamworks, 2011)? I couldn't glean much from the trailer, but it seemed like Puss is a cowboy who may have a spunky latina cat friend to protect him. Then again, he is a cute little kitty- Brown?


 -----------------------
Addition: I've named a new archetype after writing this post. The Amazon: Non-anglo individuals (usually women) who do not pose any sort of threat and are socially, politically, or sexually superior to their peers.

Keep the discussion going in the comments below.

Essay - Women Story-Tellers

I wrote this essay in July for a scholarship. They're suppose to tell me today if I won or not, hopefully I did! It's fairly formal with actual research and no pictures. And really long. I don't blame you if you don't read it.

----------------------------------

The Importance of Women Story-Tellers to American Myth

For when scrutinized in terms not of what it is but of how it functions, of how it has served mankind in the past, of how it may serve today, mythology shows itself to be as amenable as life itself to the obsessions and requirements of the individual, the race, the age. – Joseph Campbell, The Hero of a Thousand Faces 

American Myth 

Joseph Campbell, one of the most influential scholars in the twentieth century, spent his life pouring over ancient myths in order to find enlightenment. He believed the metaphors within myths gave sociological, psychological, metaphysical, and cosmological guidance to anyone willing to interpret them as such. The fundamental structure found in what he called the monomyth particularly interested Campbell with its perennial philosophy that contained universal truths and insights to human nature. The journeys of Hercules, Rama, Jesus Christ, King Arthur, and plethora of other great men follow the monomythic path: challenging society’s beliefs and introducing new, enlightened concepts. (Campbell, 1949) 


Movies convey the same “world-historical, macrocosmic triumphs” of a hero who “brings back from his adventure the means for the regeneration of his society as a whole” (Campbell, 30) as any ancient myth. America’s silver screen heroes retrace the hero’s path to impart new knowledge on today’s captivated audiences. Luke Skywalker in George Lucas’ Star Wars trilogy remains the most famous conscious use of the monomyth, but even more recently Peter Parker (The Amazing Spider-Man, 2012), Tony Stark (Iron Man, 2008), and Bruce Wayne (Batman Begins, 2005) each “venture forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man” (Campbell, 23). Even Stu from the 2009 movie The Hangover stumbles through a hero’s (mis)adventure to come upon his own life-altering enlightenment: living safely does not always guarantee happiness.

The Problem with American Myth

Americans look to the silver screen for guidance on how we should live and what the world is like (Behm-Morawitz and Mastro) (Escholz et al) (Taylor and Setters) (Tylka and Calogero), but when they do the hero archetype remains archaically male. Sara Nicholson proposes in her feminist critique of Campbell that in ancient myth females exist only as a symbol “in contrast or relation to the active hero” (191). Unfortunately, such symbolism quickly decays into stereotyping that perpetuates a patriarchal society that “subsume women as subtext, a bracketed subspecies of Man” (Nicholson, 187). Martha Lauzen’s analysis of recent block-buster films movies confirms this notion: even though half the population call themselves female (US Census Bureau, 2011) only a third of the characters in the top 100 grossing films of 2011 were female (2012).

Clearly the film industry needs to change something, and not just the heroes’ gender. Again, Campbell provides us an answer which Nicholson structures as such: “As part of the mythological system of framing, ordering and control, the ideas shaping gender images in mythology are limited by recourse to the time and location of their conjuring.” (192) That is, the story tellers morph the monomyth to reflect or challenge their society’s values and beliefs. Hollywood needs new story-tellers.
Lauzen’s statistics again back the theory with numbers: women held only 18% of major behind-the-scenes positions in the top 250 grossing domestic films of 2011. Only 14% of writers were women in the films, and, most deplorably, only 5% of directors. (Lauzen, 2012) What’s more, given similar budgets in the top 100 grossing worldwide films of 2007, the gender of the filmmaker or protagonist did not correlate with any significant monetary success or failure of the film (Lauzen, 2008). Only when gender and race demographics in Hollywood accurately reflect America’s population will the film industry be able to honestly portray American ideals.

The Story-Teller and Myth 

The story-teller, namely the director and writer, imparts social and personal nuances to the tale to make it relevant, thought-provoking, and inspiring to the audience. Without conscious, purposefully adjustments to the story, the female heroine becomes a stereotyped, secondary characterization rather than a strong, memorable personality. Rapunzel in Disney’s 2011 animated movie Tangled suffers from such short comings. Although entertaining, financially successful, and different than previous Disney Princess movies, Tangled failed emphasize the ‘girl power’ message it so desperately wanted to impart. The male directors Nathan Greno and Bryon Howard with male writer Dan Fogelman fell back on conventional gender roles and downplayed Rapunzel’s heroic journey. The movie is even told from the male protagonist’s perspective and opens with Flynn Rider narrating “This is the story of how I died. Don’t worry! ... The truth is it isn’t even mine, this is the story of a girl” (0:00) The lack of feminine and feminist insight behind the camera prevented Tangled from shaking off Disney’s sexist reputation. A woman director or writer could have imparted her own experiences of becoming an independent adult through the movies cinematography, dialogue, tone, etc.

Vicky Jenson did just that when she co-directed Dreamworks’ Shrek in 2001. Her outspoken opinions at the early stages of the film got her promoted to co-head of the story team and then to director. In an Life After Film School interview, Jenson describes insisting to the producers “you gotta go this way! The louder I got the more people listened” (8:37). ‘This way’ being towards a quirky and unique children’s comedy rather than a rehashed adventure story. Although the movie centers around Shrek, the female protagonist, Princess Fiona holds her own as a character and, arguably, goes through a more meaningful psychological transformation than her male counterpart. Shrek remains one of the landmark animations that generations of children and filmmakers will look to for moral and professional guidance.

Princess Fiona and Rapunzel have a lot in common; stuck in a tower for an extended period, honing fighting skills like karate, wanting to return to civilization, and of course falling in love with their rescuers. The difference between the characters is that Fiona, despite not being the main character, goes through her own heroic journey that is distinctly separate from Shrek’s. Greno and Howard paint Rapunzel as the “spunky sidekick” relation to the “swashbuckling” man (Cowden, Lafever, Viders, 2000). Tangled fails to ‘regenerate’ society’s views on women’s roles, but instead remains a patriarchal myth that perpetuates male supremacy. (Eve Bit First, 2011) Jenson, however, shaped the monomyth in Shrek to successfully challenge social norms for both Shrek and Fiona, namely the one that urges individuals to follow prescribed stereotypes in order to fit in.

Strong female leads like Rapunzel fall short of breaking the social norms due to producers failing to choose women directors or writers throughout the film industry. Examples
span across genres: from the dishonest framing of loss in Richard LaGravenese’s P.S. I Love You (2007) to the antediluvian themes of Ridley Scott’s Prometheus (2012) and the blatant stereotyping of Madea in Tyler Perry’s Diary of a Mad Black Woman. These films attempt to bring strong women to the silver screen, but just fall short especially when compared to strong women characters directed by strong women directors, i.e. Debra Granik’s Winter’s Bone (2011), Lisa Cholodenko’s The Kids are Alright, Nora Emphron’s Julie & Julia (2009).

A Path for New Story-Tellers 

How will the film industry change their demographics? Certainly not by themselves, and we can’t expect aspiring young women to endure it alone. To encourage more women to pursue careers behind the camera, I propose a multifaceted movement that actively targets and supports both girls and women. Girls will be 1) initiated into the film industry through toys, 2) encouraged to think about messages the media sends her, 3) exposed to career opportunities through broadcast interviews of and awards for women behind the camera, 4) given the opportunity to participate in camps and workshops focused on film making. Women actively pursuing need a support system that incorporates 5) scholarships and mentorships.

Imagine, a young girl unwraps a present at her ninth birthday party. How thrilled would she be to see her very own Katniss Everdeen (Hunger Games, 2012) doll. Of course this would add to her collection that’s already populated by Storm (XMen, 2000), Hermione (Harry Potter, 2001), and Neytiri (Avatar, 2009). She and her friends will play with them while donning costumes inspired by The Hunger Games, Snow White and the Huntsman, and The Help. Although some of the parents balk at the idea of giving the young girl merchandise inspired by movies rated PG-13, few bat their eyes at her twin brother receiving Avenger’s costumes, Star Wars Legos, or Transformer figurines.

1) Presently the majority of media-marketed toys marketed to girl come from G-Rated franchises or from television. The message that current media themed toys give, besides the “associations with physical attractiveness, nurturance, and domestic skill,” (Blakemore) is that young girls are somehow unworthy of participating in the mature and complex world of film. Marketing more feminine toys using mature movies initiates girls’ interest in the film culture. Because they are made to hook children into franchises, the toys are sure to have a lasting influence on the girl

Assuming Mockingjay, the third installment of The Hunger Games trilogy, comes out two years after the first movie, the fictional young girl will be 11 when it comes out. Her parents give in to her pleads and let her watch the series on DVD and take her to the movie. Because girls mature earlier that boys (Klimstra), she handles the violence, love, and other mature themes better than her brother does at The Avengers 2. What is more, the girl is more likely to reflect on the movie’s themes in relation to her life (Burwell & Shirk).

2) Organizations like Women’s Media Center should encourage parents to watch mature films with their daughters and discuss it afterwards. Providing pamphlets to guide parents through a discussion will help insure the girl understands the themes and messages in the movie. This will help girls, and their brothers, become more media literate and critically think about the role of media plays in their lives.

After the movie, the girl becomes enthralled with the heroine Katniss and researches her online. In her investigations she runs across the other popular adolescent feminine movie- Twilight. Perhaps, as girls do, the girl fosters a crush on one of the characters, and starts watching videos of the cast. She runs across an interview with Catherine Hardwicke, the director of the first Twilight film. In this moment, the girl realizes ‘Whoa, I can have a handsome actor in my house, tell him what to do, and people will pay me big bucks for it!’

3) Off-camera women in the film-industry should make a point to move in front of the camera and make their presence known. They can give more interviews and participate in youth geared media. For example, television programs like the MTV Movie Awards or the Kids Choice Awards could add categories like best director, writer and give professionals like Hardwicke the opportunity to expose young people to their world and foster aspirations that go beyond the glamorous lifestyles of stars.

Through Middle and High School, the girl goes to as many film classes, workshops, and camps that she can so as to learn all the aspects to creating movies. Her parents send her to local workshops like Femme Film Texas, Sprout Media by Kids, and Real Girls, Reel Change. She comes back excited to show them all the writing, storyboarding, casting, acting, and directing she’s done.

4) Although many organizations exist to promote women in the film industry or inform girls about the media’s messaging, few exist that encourage young girls to actually learn how to make their own films. Organizations like Movies By Women, Women’s Media Center, and Women in Film Los Angeles should strive to offer film-making workshops, promote their causes, and provide scholarships to promising young girls.

Suppose the girl, now a young woman, goes film school on one of these scholarships. She’s made it right? Although she’s a confident individual, the stress and pressure of succeeding in this male dominated field makes her waiver. Luckily she finds an organization that connects her to other women in the film industry. They support each other’s endeavors while giving helpful tips, encouraging thoughts, and potential opportunities.

5) Women in other male-dominated fields have expressed feelings of “isolation and inadequacy” (Antony and Cudd, 1) that lead to dropping out or transferring to another major. Corporations such as Texas Instruments, AT&T, and Lockheed Martin recognized this problem and began supporting the website MentorNet. It matches professionals with students in engineering and science and is geared particularly for women and persons of color. People in the film industry, big name or small, need to start a similar program that targets college students and young professionals. Not only would this help a young woman deal with cocky peers, chauvinist professors, or the simple challenges of getting through school, but it will also jumpstart her on the all-important task of networking.

As a driven, confident, knowledgeable, and supported woman, this director works her way to the top of Hollywood. She crafts movies with such bravado that the whole world becomes enamored with her. In casting she disregards gender, allowing men and women try out for any role. Actors rave about her ability show them how to feel their characters’ passion. Audiences forget they’re in a theater when watching her films. Most importantly, she directs films in order to challenge social structure and provide models of a greater reality.
She knows her influence reaches beyond the movie theater. Advocating for women, she invests time and money into programs that helped her when she was young including film camps for girls, televised interviews and lectures, a scholarship fund for aspiring filmmakers, and a mentorship with student at the American Film Institute. She also fights discrimination within the industry by declining a jury position at the Cannes Film Festival when none of the nominated films are directed by women and publicly points out her colleague’s pointlessly undimensional female charter as stereotyped. And, when her adventure movie releases, she insures that any toys marketed highlight the intellectual abilities of girls, not the physical impossibilities.

∞

Campbell describes a particular dreamer as a “distinguished operatic artist” who follows “not the safely marked general highways of the day, but the adventure of the special… that comes to those ears are open… to make her way alone through the difficulties not commonly encounter.” (Campbell, 16) Woman’s journey to equality in the film industry can be likened to this dreamer’s. Although unorthodox and arduous, a woman’s career in behind-the-camera Hollywood gives her the ability to frame America’s myths in new perspectives that challenge the patriarchal system we live in today. Any woman or girl entering into such a whale’s belly of a task deserves a strong supportive community of allies so that she can return to society the boons of freedom and equality.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To see the Bibliography, please contact me, the author. 

This is an original essay: Do Not Steal it in any part without proper citation. Thank you. 

To me, you are perfect, and I love you very much. God bless you, God bless America.

Meryl Streep heard Jack Nicholas say the words of this post's title when she won the 2004 AFI Life Achievement Award. Most people I suspect agree with his sentiments. The actress has been nominated for 17 Oscars and 26 Golden Globes. She won 3 of those Oscars, which only four other actors have done (Katherine Hepburn, earning one more than that, has the most). Not only is she the most nominated performer at the Golden Globes, she is also the most awarded with 8 on her shelves. Plus so much more. Dr. Streep reigns as America's greatest actress. No arguing.

I wanted to investigate her career more to figure out if there was another feminine archetype other than Girl. The works I've chosen only include her recent films (New American Mythology), and I've avoided the more obscure movies. Now, I havn't seen all these so feel free to point out my short-comings.

The Hours (Paramount, 2002), Clarissa Vaughn

Girl - This complex movie is essentially about Girl archetypes desperately trying to define happiness (and along with it independance). Clarissa Vaughn struggles with the emotions she has for her dying friend Richard, even though she is a lesbian in a committed relationship. This makes her a Girl because even though she has the sexual freedom to choose her lover and other liberties, her life is not 'happy' but filled with anxiety. 

The Manchurian Candidate (Paramount, 2004), Eleanor Shaw

Cowboy (in The City) - An apparently disappointing remake of a 1962 film, The Manchurian Candidate is a conspiracy movie with Denzel Washington, Leiv Shreiber, and Meryl Streep. Streep's character has a total disregard of ethics, but still believes in America's potential. She uses other people for her own beliefs and gains without consideration of the others' lives. Hence a Cowboy.

The Devil Wears Prada (Twentieth Century Fox, 2006) Miranda Priestly

Cowboy -  Streep plays a influential executive of a fashion magazine. Andrea Sachs, the main character, along with most people in the movie perceive Miranda Priestly as cold and ruthless. Miranda does not care for others' emotions or aspirations, nor does sugar coat the truth. These ways have gotten her to the top of her business, but they have isolated her. In fact if she was a bit nicer and helped other people she could be a Astronaut. But that wouldn't make much of an adversary for our Girl heroine Andy.

Lions for Lambs (MGM, 2007), Janine Roth 

Girl (or Astronaut) - Streep plays a journalist who is told of a new government strategy to win the wars in the Middle East. She disagrees with the stratify, seeing it as political ploy. The scene here is after she knows the whole plan. The ethical implications of publicizing the story give Roth pause. She must choose to follow The Man's orders and spread the information as propaganda, or she can report the facts as a political manipulation of the military. The movie ends without revealing Roth's actions, but the story is presented in a positive (propagandic) light. We can suppose Roth decided not to fight back, seeing the repercussions a too great, and gave the story up. This would mean she's a Girl. Alternatively, if she decided to quit and get the 'true' story out on her own, sacrificing her security for the greater good. This would make her an Astronaut. But the story does come out, so more than likely, Girl.

Mamma Mia! (Universal Pictures, 2008), Donna

Cowboy? - This one is tough. The shenanigans in Mama Mia! actually aren't an epic story, but a fairy tale strung together with song. It's fun and quirky, but what is Donna? My initial reaction was to label her as a Girl, but she isn't struggling against The Man nor is she very conflicted. Well, her conflicts are inner emotional ones not ones that make her choose between having children or a career. She doesn't 'need' a man but she wants one.  Can I call her a CowGirl? Is that fair? 

Doubt (Miramax, 2008),  Sister Aloysius Beauvier

Zombie - Sister Beauvier is perfectly content in the Church's structure. So much so that she blindly follows the rules and acts only when she feels those rules have been violated. She does not struggle to live within the parish, nor does she live for her own success (that's why she's a nun). The Sister's strong beliefs eventually cause her to disregard the rules without any reason other than her intuition. So even though she's not trying to munch on the Pastor's leg, she 'eats away' at his resolve and reputation because her instincts tell her to.

 Julie & Julia (Columbia Pictures, 2009), Julia Child

Astronaut - Streep lent her talents to portray the heroic figure of Julia Child. The movie/Streep portrays Julia as a strong-willed woman not trying to fit into French culture, but instead embracing whatever circumstances she was in and making the absolute best of them. The chef had the gumption to follow her own interests, and the passion to share them with the world. She believed the knowledge of French Cooking could better the lives of cooks and eaters everywhere. Not only did she write a book, but she had a show on public television. She took American cuisine out of The City and into Space!! Bon Appetite!  [Julie on the other hand is quite obviously a Girl that happened to get lucky and got a book published. That part of the movie is actually quite dull.]

It's Complicated (Universal Pictures, 2009), Jane Adler

Girl - Jane Adler, a divorced woman, thinks life is finally going to straighten out and make sense when ! Complications arise! She's got two guys vying for her love, one of which she already made commitments to. She follows the path infront of her, but not without hesitation. Jane even confronts her therapist about the ethical implications of carrying out an affair with her ex-husband (making her non-Zombie). Eventually, she realizes she doesn't want her ex/past, but a new life. Her reluctance to say no to her ex makes her a Girl (not fighting The Man), as well as the complications and anxieties that brings about.

The Iron Lady (Film4, 2011)Margaret Thatcher 

Astronaut/Girl - This movie occupies an awkward spot in New American Mythology; it's a movie about a recent-ish British icon. Phyllidia Lloyd couldn't seem to decide between a biopic that focused on Margaret Thatcher's private or public life. If it had focused on the public life, she could have been an Astronaut or Cowboy (or the British version). The movie portrayed Thatcher's private life in a way that could have been Astronaut or Girl. Meryl Streep pulls both off well, which is why she won an Oscar for the role, but unlike Julie & Julia the director/editor/producers whoever couldn't pull off the dual storylines. It ends up being a stunning Streep performance in a mess of a movie that doesn't quite enlighten us on this public figure.

Hope Springs (Management 360, 2012), Kay

Girl - I havn't read or heard too much about Hope Springs. The Girl label here is just a conjecture.  Anyone watch this movie and want to have some input? Or how about the other movies? Leave a comment below.

I don't see any additional archetypes really in just Meryl Streep's characters. Maybe as I investigate New American Mythology further I'll find a neater title for characters like Donna in Mama Mia! or Margaret Thatcher. Please don't confuse these analysis of characters as an critique on Meryl Streep; clearly she can embody any of the archetypes flawlessly even when the directors don't know what they're doing. I think she's a self-possessed and kind lady. Even trying to poke fun at her makes you look foolish. So, in my book Dr. Streep reigns as Queen.

[Note: I left out Angels in America because I havn't seen it since it came out. The mini-series is too complex to analyze from clips on the internet. It wasn't that I was trying to downplay the importance or influence of the series, it was just that I knew I couldn't do it justice. Sorry.]

Nostalgia: How not to Time Travel

"Nostalgia is denial - denial of the painful present... the name for this denial is golden age thinking - the erroneous notion that a different time period is better than the one one's living in - its a flaw in the romantic imagination of those people who find it difficult to cope with the present."

Surprisingly, perhaps, this is from Woody Allen's recent film Midnight in Paris (Gravier Productions, 2011). The movie itself is, well, a Woody Allen film- entertaining, introspective, rambling, and questionable at times. 

Why in the world did the poster designer pick van Gogh's Starry Night?????
Nonsensical!

We're not here to talk about Woody Allen though, but about Nostalgia. He defines it so well that I feel silly explaining the idea any further. I'm going to anyway. The fact that Allen made a film explicitly about Nostalgia shows that at least some people in Hollywood notice this trend in American Mythology. 

The hard part about Nostalgia is noticing it as an incarnation of The City. That "erroneous notion that a different time period is better than the one one's living in" is a loss of faith in humanity. So it's not just 'the past,' but using selective history to frame the present as not awesome. Nostalgia also isn't explicit exploitation of your heartstrings, although it can be. Sometimes it's something as simple as not coming up with a new idea, sometimes it's really explicit. Sometimes it's both. 

Quit being a Nostalgic hipster Ryan Gosling!
Oh wait...

Practically no genre of current American Mythology is free from Nostalgia, and it comes in various aesthetics. Although some Nostalgia 'look' old, others use old concepts or ideas. (But that does not necessarily mean all things drawn from the past are Nostalgic.) 

David Guetta's 'Titanium ft. Sia' is currently on VH1's Top 20 Music Videos. Kind of an odd story, but hey it's a music video. We've got this Astronaut-kid (isolated, has powers) with a sweet bike in 80's? suburbia made more old by the lens filters. Carly Rae Jepsen's somehow insanely popular "Call me Maybe" also utilizes the old lens as well as old cars and suburbia (but the guy wheres ipod headphones..?). Instead of being in suburbia, the suburban kids are at the beach in One Direction's "What Makes you Beautiful" music video, complete with 70's cars and more old filters. Justin Bieber rounds it all out in "Boyfriend" with filters again, old cars, Michael Jackson's dance moves, 80s clothes, and a hairstyle borrowed from New Kids on the Block. There's no plot or conceptual reason to have these vintaged music videos. You'll also note that these songs are (arguably) the worst of Pop music: repetitive and expected rehashings of the same angsty themes. Not fresh at all. 

The Help (Dreamworks SKG, 2011) particularly annoyed me for it exploitation of Nostalgia. The highly successful film had millions of white people nodding their heads saying, oh yes look how good we were, we freed the Mammies. Nevermind that the film misrepresents both southern black women and southern white women (I'm not saying people like that didn't exist, I'm saying that not all southern women, regardless of race, are dumb and demure), in this post I'm more concerned with the total disregard of the present situation. The book and movie could have spun the plot so that it made readers/viewers reflect on current racial tensions, namely the ones directed toward immigrants from Latin America, but this can also extend to 'The Help' who hail from Asia as well. Instead fans of "The Help" appluade at Emma Stone's performance and just blink accusations made at Sharon Stone.

It could have been so awesome...
Prometheus (Brandywine Productions, 2012)

At least The Help was an original idea. Ridley Scott's origin story/third(?) reboot of his Alien (1979) franchise Prometheus (2012) also could have been cool if he hadn't used themes from 20th Century Mythology. I really did want to like it, it just failed to remain/become relevant for today's audiences. Instead of capturing the wonder of space or search for god/knowledge and pitting it against greed and self preservation (which it easily could have), Ridley chose to play up the weakness of humanity against the force of god/nature/knowledge/people with money. That's not something the American people want to see. 

Other reboots and remakes include: The Expendables (for the actors), Dark Shadows (for the remake, actor(s), and director), The Bourne Legacy (plot), Total Recall (plot), Ice Age: Continental Drift (characters), and The Three Stooges (concept). In television: Charlies Angels (whole thing), Go On (actor), I Love the [Decade] on VH1 (whole thing). There's more too. Just wait til this fall, a whole wave of interdimensional feel good movies are coming. Maybe they'll be good...

Which brings up a bump in my dislike of Nostalgia. Sometimes the past aesthetic works. I don't quite know how to grapple with the fact that I really like Wes Anderson films which almost exclusively use Nostalgia (and quirky hipster-ness) to draw viewers, particularly his most recent movie Moonrise Kingdom (2012). Perhaps Anderson knows how to use Nostalgia in a way that conveys a deeper concept missing from most movies and makes it relevant. His movies, however, have to be watched multiple times, and Moonrise Kingdom hasn't come out on DVD just yet. When it does, it'll be on repeat as I mull it over. 

There's also The Artist which won Best Picture at the Academy Awards, which was filmed as if it were of the time period. But then again it's a French film, so maybe we can dismiss it from American Mythology and avoid the problem altogether. 

Also, I suspect the Great Recession has something to do the recent rise of Nostalgia. Or we can blame the hipsters.

Ideas anyone?