The Many Faces of Xenophobia in 'The Line'

One of the most harrowing news stories in recent South African history was that of the 2008 Xenophobia riots. What was so particularly striking about this story was that, no matter what your race or social background, no South African citizen was completely desensitized to these riots. Whether you were the victim, the oppressor, the person who delivered food and blankets to the churches and police stations or merely the person watching the riots unfold in the news media, the trauma of these events was not limited to a single community. Essentially, it involved the entire nation, leaving all of our perceptions of South Africa forever changed. Up until now there have been relatively few works of film or theatre which have openly addressed and explored the social and psychological consequences of these riots. This is what makes Gina Shmukler’s The Line one of the most striking, powerful and important pieces of theatre you will see this year.

The development of The Line emerged from Shmukler’s Masters Research project which explored the role of trauma in relation to theatre-making. As part of this project, Shmukler went into the townships to interview various South African citizens who were affected by the Xenophobia riots. The Line plays out as a compilation of these interviews which Shmukler has moulded to fit the theatrical form. In this form the interviews become brutally honest testimonies which are performed by two exceptionally talented young actresses, Khutjo Green and Gabi Harris. As the play develops the two actresses juggle multiple roles as they give voice to the varying perspectives, insights and experiences that emerged from the Xenophobia riots.

What is particularly impressive about Shmukler’s work on The Line is that it presents the riots as a collective South African experience. It would have been very easy for her to make this a play that simply looks at the riots from the perspective of the victims. It would have also been very easy for her to present the oppressors simply as violent savages without exploring and questioning their actions. However this production is much braver than that. Every voice we are exposed to throughout the show is one that we can understand and sympathize with in some way. As The Line demonstrates, the word “oppressor” in the case of the Xenophobia riots is one that does not fully comprehend the dynamics of this situation. These “oppressors” are not inherently bad people. They are desperate and disillusioned, battling to grapple with the reality that the government they have supported has promised them everything and given them nothing. The play delves even further into the South African psyche as it exposes us to the perspective of the white “outsiders”, the people we presume to be distant and unaware of the harsh realities of the riots. As Shmukler’s script and Harris’s performance reveal, these “outsiders” have their own experience of pain. Essentially it is, of course, not the same pain as that of the victims or the oppressors. Yet it is still every bit as devastating as these “outsiders” battle to reconcile their perception of a post-Apartheid, democratic South Africa with the prejudices and violence that have transcended from the townships into homes which are not too far from their own living areas.

Complementing the collective experience that emerges in the manner Shmukler draws  the play’s testimonies together is Charl-Johan Lingenfelder’s music score and Niall Griffin’s stage design. Lingenfelder’s music score is often sharp and frightening, perfectly capturing both our national and individual anxieties. Griffin’s stage design is both moving and haunting in its simplicity. This design is made up of a large number milk bottles which are hung up next one another, connected by a wire. Within each bottle is a photograph of a victim of Xenophobia. Again this design not only expresses the trauma of the riots but also how —though they may seem distinct from each other— the trauma of the victim, oppressor and “outsider” are inherently linked to one another.

The Line is an uncompromising, harrowing and powerful piece of theatre which takes us on a socio-political and emotional journey which is familiar and accessible to every one of us. The fact that the audiences the play has attracted thus far represent an equal spread of every South African demographic indicates that we are now ready to acknowledge and deal with the respective roles we took on during the period of the Xenophobia riots. The Line is a production which puts these roles into perspective for us, prompting our united healing process to finally begin.

Source for Photo 1: http://www.whatsupjozi.com/2012/johannesburg-theatre/the-line-at-the-market-theatre/3060

Murder and Pop Culture: Some Thoughts on the Denver 'Batman' Shooting

By now everyone knows about the horrific shootings that happened at a movie theatre in Denver, Colorado during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises. The name James Holmes, which meant nothing to us the other day, is now etched in our memories, reminding us how deranged, twisted and violent humanity can actually be. Inevitably, due to where these shootings occurred, there will be efforts on the part of average citizens, psychologists, criminologists and pop culture analysts to link Holmes's motivations back to the Batman franchise in some way. Perhaps it may be argued that Holmes might have forged a connection with a particular Batman villain (reports claim that Holmes dyed his hair red and referred to himself as 'the Joker') and decided to enact this role in his approach to the shootings. Booby-trapping an apartment is itself an action which can be associated with the schemes of comic book super-villains.  So far I have read two articles that claim there is no inherent link between Holmes's actions and the Batman franchise. This may very well be true. However I feel that to completely neglect the possible function of pop culture in motivating and developing this crime is a mistake.

 The 1999 Columbine massacre provides and  interesting comparison to the Holmes shooting, not only because both events occurred in Colorado, but also because it suggests the manner in which a murderer may use media texts to construct his identity. For those who don't know the story behind it, this massacre occurred after two senior high school boys entered school one day and embarked on a violent shooting spree, killing 12 students and 1 teacher, while badly injuring 21 students directly . Following this, the two boys turned their guns on themselves and committed suicide. The lead -up to the event notably began with the formation of a website by the shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, which was initially created as a source for gaming levels for the Doom computer game. Within the site Harris submitted blog entries which indicated the developing process of their plans as they spoke about personal issues, weaponry, explosives and his and Klebold's own malicious antics .

The fact that Doom was essentially used as a 'cover' for Harris and Klebold's scheme is allegedly no coincidence. It is said that Harris created his own levels for the game on the internet and, at one time, it was rumoured that the layout of these levels resembled that of the high school. Though this was subsequently proven to be inaccurate, there remains speculation that Harris and Klebold, who had criminal records prior to the massacre, enaacted many of the realities of their games in the real world as a response to the consistent lessening of their computer privileges due to bad behaviour. Essentially the energy they put into their online activities could have been transferred to their real world ones. Other media cultures and texts which were related to Harris and Klebold's motivations were aspects of Goth culture, Oliver Stone's film Natural Born Killers and, amongst other rock acts, the music of Marilyn Manson which, at the time, appeared to advocate for devil worship and murder.*

If any of these media links to the Columbine massacre are true, then it is a massacre which is grounded in media responses . I use the word 'responses' here because I believe that to refer to pop culture as an influencing factor in a serial killing or massacre is a mistake. Pop culture is rooted in reflections on our society, it does not make it. The way we engage with it depends on our own psychological states because the aspects of a film, book, piece of music or video game which we individually remember most are ones that register most accurately with our social backgrounds, behavioural traits and other such aspects of our psychological make-up. Essentially pop culture enforces our identities. It does not influence them. Hence if the media texts which are associated with Harris and Klebold's behaviour are indeed accurate then it is possible to suggest that they acted as modes of expression for these two young killers. Their interest in Natural Born Killers is itself evidence of this as the film grapples with the relationship between the media and serial killers. The film could essentially have reflected on  Harris and Klebold's own desire to be noticed and "admired", clearly in the most graphic way possible. If this was the case their interest in it was clearly rooted in how it identified this part of themselves.

Perhaps then this is the case with Holmes's case. Whether he is an avid comic book geek or someone who merely has a working knowledge of the Batman series, I can't help but think that there's a reason why the opening of The Dark Knight Rises was the chosen event for his particular massacre. For some dark and depraved reason he might have seen the  Batman series as an expression of himself. Perhaps in the Batman villains he noticed his own desire for rage and murder. Choosing to associate himself with the morally, ethically and socially jaded world of Gotham City might have been his sadistic way of saying "this is who I really am".  Whereas we see Batman as a form of entertainment with an interesting subtext, he might see it as a life force which defines his true nature.

Of course we may never know whether this is indeed the case but, if it is, it is certainly a lesson in the dangers of identifying with media in a particular way.  Holmes's suggested interpretation of Batman has now possibly forever tarnished the image of the Batman comics and films. Much more tragically, however, it has ended human lives.

Source for info on Columbine: Wikipedia


Source for Photo: http://zipmeme.com/meme/James-Holmes-Joker-Meme/115636/popular/

History, Drugs and Rock 'n Roll in Craig Higginson's 'Little Foot'

In his programme notes for Little Foot, playwright Craig Higginson observes that there is a gap in the South African theatrical market for young adults. Indeed it's true that though there are a multitude of theatre productions aimed at children and adults, none capture the daunting personal and academic challenges which come with the territory of being a teenager. Though Higginson's latest play Little Foot  has slight flaws, it is still an interesting and accessible production which is a step in the right direction for the development of young adult theatre.

Set in present-day South Africa, Little Foot tells the story of a group of young, university-going friends who come together, a year after they last saw each other, to take a journey through the network of caves at the Cradle of Mankind. Each member of this group has a particular issue with Wizard (Dylan Nicol Horley), the group's ring leader, who joins the party with his British girlfriend, Rebecca (Phumzile Sitole). Influenced by their joint anger towards him, Coco (Jenna Dunster), Braai (Khayelihle Dominique Gumede) and Moby (Glen Biderman Pam) conspire to play a prank on Wizard which will inevitably end in tragedy. As the action of the play evolves, it is intercut with the physical enactment of the story of Little Foot (Mlondolozi Bradley Zondi), a three-million year old hominin which was discovered in the caves and, according to the show's press release, is now in the process of having its calcified bones extracted from the caves after a thirteen- year effort. The enactment of this narrative acts as a parallel to the show's contemporary narrative, commenting on how the development of our modern identities consistently intersects with the urges and behaviours of the primal identities which have preceded us.

Little Foot's greatest asset is its visual flair. Particularly in the scenes where the Little Foot plot is enacted, Neil Coppen's stage design is inventive and captivating, as are the soil coloured masks he has created for the hominins. Zondi and his fellow chorus members do a striking job as the union between the masks and their creative physicality creates a spell-binding energy on the stage. In truth it's quite a risk to merge this narrative with the contemporary  narrative and had the play been conceptualized differently, the combination may have seemed a bit jarring. Yet through Higginson's fanciful writing and director Malcolm Purkey's clever direction, the two narratives complement and merge with one another seamlessly. Theatre buffs will enjoy watching how the Greek tragedy model is reshaped to be both contemporary and distinctly South African, as well as visually stimulating.

 The feel of the production would be more effective, however, if the play was performed in a smaller space. As it stands Little Foot is being performed at the Market Theatre's Main Theatre which is a large and all-encompassing venue. It makes us feel somewhat distant from the play's action when the intimacy of its two narratives require us to be part of it. The success of 3-D movies, particularly for teenage audiences, is attributed to the fact that they pull viewers into the cinematic world, allowing them to experience this world directly through the characters' eyes. Little Foot could have benefited from a similar experience. Had the play been performed in the smaller space of either the Barney Simon Theatre or the Laager Theatre this effect would have been achieved, particularly if the audience seating was arranged to circle the stage. Utilizing this technique would have pulled us directly into the realities of the cave.

In terms of the play's contemporary narrative, Higginson does a great job at ensuring that that the interactions between the main characters remain sharp and witty. They are also certainly likable and interesting. Yet, by the end of the play, it feels like there's so much more that still needs to be explored with these characters. For instance, throughout the play, we learn very little about Rebecca. Obviously holding back information about characters can be an effective technique  but in this case it feels like the omitted information could have actually helped facilitate an even more dynamic narrative. On this note, the play's ending is also a bit too ambiguous, leaving us with far too many unanswered questions. Again, though ambiguous endings can work to a play's advantage, I think Little Foot's target audience would have appreciated an ending which tied up the narrative's loose ends a bit more.

Despite these flaws, Little Foot remains and exciting and innovative production. If it is indeed able to draw teenage audiences away from computer games and Twilight then it's done a fantastic job.

.  *Little Foot is now on at The Market Theatre until 19 August

Source for photo: http://markettheatre.co.za/shows/watch/little-foot

Ignorance in Bloom: Why Woody Allen Should Make A Movie In Israel

Just the other day I was doing my usual Daily Maverick browsing session when I came across an article by Kevin Bloom entitled "Bullets Over Tel-Aviv: Why Woody Allen shouldn't shoot in Israel" For those of you haven't read it, let me break it down for you. The article states that Woody Allen has expressed interest in shooting a film in Israel, a country that he has yet to visit but is very fond of. As the title of the article suggests, the rest of it is preoccupied with proving why Allen shouldn't shoot a movie in Israel. Bloom takes us through various possible film plotlines that could possibly arise in a "Woody Allen in Israel" film. One of the suggestions he makes are a sequel to Manhattan Murder Mystery entitled Jerusalem Murder Mystery which would involve the two protagonists from the previous film taking a trip to Jerusalem where they find that their neighbour has been kidnapped and has fallen in love with a member of Hamas. Two other possible suggestions he makes are Israeli versions of Bullets Over Broadway (Bullets Over Tel-Aviv) and Midnight in Paris (Midnight in Haifa). As Bloom smugly suggests both these film ideas are problematic because, while Broadway and Paris are films that pay sentimental tributes to the art of theatre-making and writing respectively, Israeli theatre and writing is all overtly political and, therefore, not of much interest to the rest of the world. He concludes that Allen probably shouldn't make films in a country he knows nothing about.

Now here's the problem with Bloom's argument: he probably hasn't been to Israel himself. I'm not forming this opinion based on any Zionist agenda. In fact, I consider myself to be apolitical as far as the country's concerned. However having lived there for five years of my young life and having made numerous visits back to the country over the last couple of years, I can personally testify to the fact that religion and politics aren't as central to Israeli life as the media makes them out to be. Yeah okay there is the army but, from what I understand, if you're not on the battlefield, it's really not as bad as it's made out to be. In fact many graduate recruits have claimed to have had the time of their lives serving the army. Then there is the fact that a city such as Tel-Aviv has quite a prolific social scene that really has nothing to do with the country's political or religious issues. Bloom's claim that all Israeli theatre and writing is political is perhaps the biggest tell-tale sign of his ignorance because any idiot can tell you that there is no way a country's art can just be political and nothing else. In recent years I saw a wonderful Israeli play (based on an Israeli book) called My First Sony about the experiences of an eleven year-old Israeli boy growing up in Israel. There were no gestures to any grand political or religious themes. It was simply just a sweet, perceptive slice-of-life and proof that Mr Bloom's argument is grounded in the ridiculous.

I'm well aware that, in his capacity as a journalist, Bloom has done some fine work. I've read snippets of his book Ways of Staying which was written in the wake of the murder of his friend Brett Goldin and cousin Richard Bloom in 2006. The book is a memoir which deals with his crime and political related experiences in South Africa, prompting an exploration of the role of white people in South African society. What I read was well written but, like most of Bloom's journalism, it's quite angry writing. The problem with anger is that it leads to ignorance and such is the case with this article. The Israel Bloom presents us with here is one that has been formulated via his own political beliefs. He's not going to make any visits or do any other research into the kind of country that lies beyond its religious and political affiliations because that does damage to his angry street-cred if he actually finds something positive. He goes on in the article to state if Allen were to make a film in Israel, it would be "a slap in the face to Israeli directors who are currently making brave and important movies about their homeland". Predictably the movies he mentions are heavily political or at least correlate with political ideals. The fact of the matter is that the bravest Israeli films are those that aren't actually about war. I'm talking about the films that, like My First Sony, are just a portrait of what it is to live a personal/ social life in Israel, one that is independent from all usual stereotypes associated with the country. Unfortunately we only get to see these kinds of films once a year at the Israeli film festival.

The great thing about a director like Allen making a film in Israel is that it could lead to an unearthing of more of these kind of 'slice-of life' films. Allen is a master at telling wonderfully simple and quirky stories and the cities in his movies take on a very different appeal when they have been 'Alleninised'. Just think of how Allen's films have enhanced the images of New York, Paris, Barcelona and London. It would be fascinating to see what he could do with Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem or Haifa. With the wonderful crop of actors he has at his disposal, Allen could even challenge the simple-minded opinion that an Israeli movie has to have predominantly Jewish characters. I don't see any Israeli citizens objecting to having the likes of Penelope Cruz,  Owen Wilson and Scarlett Johanssen walking amongst them, playing out love stories that aren't in fact about marrying into the right Jewish family or families. Now that would be ground-breaking cinema, even if it is from a director that really knows nothing about Israel.

Source for Photo 1: http://www.startyournovel.com/2012/01/what-can-woody-allen-teach-you-about.html

Source for Photo 2: http://standupportal.tumblr.com/post/27054890142/woody-allen

Defining a Hero: The Problem with Commemorating Madiba

Let's face it, South Africa (and probably most of the world) will take any opportunity to celebrate the life of Nelson Mandela. Of course this week there's no need to search for a reason to do it. Madiba's 94th birthday is the perfect platform for a grand-scale tribute, as well as for doing your 67 minutes worth of community service for the year. It also provides yet another opportunity for the ANC to remind us how they are presumably abiding by the Mandela manifesto. Inevitably, there will also be more commemorative mugs, t-shirts, caps and every other piece of memorabilia, just to confirm that Nelson Mandela is one of the greatest men who ever lived (in case you didn't already know).

For me, these methods of commemoration raise an issue which has been proved to be consistently problematic in defining our country's attitude towards Nelson Mandela as a hero. The question here is namely, is this the right way to celebrate a hero? On that note, is there a right way to celebrate a hero? The answer to this question is a difficult one because inevitably Mandela's achievements are one's that justly require celebration. This was, after all, the man who fought for our nation's freedom from the confines of his Robben Island prison cell and, since then, has become the defining figurehead of post-Apartheid South Africa. The problem is essentially that there is no subtlety in the way Mandela's heroism is celebrated. Firstly every second street, bridge, theatre, shopping place or any other such space is named after him. Then there's that  infamous Sandton Square statue that every second tourist has to take a picture with, as well as the flashy 4664 concert. This, of course, is the very tip of the iceberg. The man, it seems, is apparently flawless. Our beloved South African cartoonist Jonathan Shapiro (otherwise known as Zapiro) delights in degrading our current president  Jacob Zuma, particularly when he has the chance to attack his crown jewels. Yet, when it comes to caricaturing Madiba, he is strangely sensitive and subdued. It's as if faulting  Madiba's image is completely taboo. Such an offence could essentially be considered undignified and disrespectful.

Yet the question that needs to be raised here is whether turning Madiba's goodness into a commercial brand is an action which is not in itself undignified and disrespectful. The fact is that there's a large majority of South African citizens who only understand Mandela in his branded form. They salivate over his shirts, swoon when he takes a photograph with a Hollywood celebrity and stock up on any piece of Madiba memorabilia they can find to show that they're liberal South Africans. Yet their knowledge of his actual history is, at best, superficial. Mandela is an icon but he's one that goes unnoticed unless he's glamourised rather than historicised. This may not be the Zuma 'Spear' treatment but are there not some commonalities here? The way Madiba is represented in all his various media forms is not an example of overt or intentional mockery. However by choosing to emphasise aesthetics over history, media representations of Madiba exemplify a ridiculousness of a different sort. It appears that when it's not being used as an ANC scapegoat, the Mandela legacy is rapidly defined by its pageantry and everyone wants a piece of it. Sadly this has served to make Madiba appear to be more of a cash-cow hero than a historical and moral one.

And therein lies the dilemma: how do we honour Nelson Mandela without the excess that's come to define him? The reason this question is so difficult to answer is because we have never known or seen Madiba in isolation from his commemorative persona. Therefore we don't know how to honour him in any other. I'm not sure if this is a problem that will ever be solved but taking our 67 minutes of goodwill to consider who Madiba really is is a good start.


Source for Photo 1: http://www.nelsonmandelas.com/nelson-mandela-pictures.php?type=statues

Source for Photo 2: http://oralhistoryeducation.com/aparthied-stories

Rediscovering Hogwarts:' Harry' Without the Commercial Posse

Lately I've come to realize that merchandising is the kiss of death for  literature. Once Hollywood, McDonald's and Toys 'R Us get hold of  books which  are popular in the literary market, they take on an identity that is often entirely at odds with the one they established in their initial written form. Fairytales, for instance, are never read in the same light after they become 'Disneyfied'. The Little Mermaid which began life as a somber Christian morality tale is now known primarily as a cute Disney movie with talking fish and a red-haired babe with a purple bikini top and a fish tail. It's also known for its numerous televised spin-offs, a Broadway musical and the numerous collectible toys which are still available in some form or another.  This merchandising effect has done wonders for some works of literature or "literature". Through the merchandising machine, Stephanie Meyer's Twilight, Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games and now E.L. James's Fifty Shades of Grey have gained  street-cred that they otherwise wouldn't have had if they remained in their original literary form.

However, for every success story, there is always a casualty. Such a casualty is a piece of literature which is actually really good but loses its credibility when it becomes a breeding ground for movie stars and Happy Meals. There are two such examples I can think of here. The first is any novel by Jane Austen. Austen is actually a brilliant satirist but much of this quality in her work is lost amidst the pink book covers and Colin Firth memorabilia which give off the impression that her works are simply conventional romances. The second is J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series. I'll examine Austen's pop culture status in a later post (or you could just read my thesis for a general perspective). Today's post is strictly dedicated to the Harry Potter books which I'm only now beginning to see value in.

  My initial resistance to the Harry Potter phenomenon can be traced back to when I first heard about it in its capacity as a commercialized modality. I think it was around the time when it was first announced that the director of Mrs Doubtfire would be directing the film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. It was also around the time when the fourth book, Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire came out. Intrigued, I decided  to give the books a bash. However, when I finally got around to doing it, the movie's release date was inching ever closer, chocolate frogs were beginning to be sold and some British kid named Daniel Radcliffe started turning up on every magazine cover. It was also the time where parents came out with their accusations that the books were Satanic.

Will all that in mind, I read the first two books not as works of literature but hyped up pieces of commercialism. I perceived it as a readable form of a 'Happy Meal', pretty but not much substance. Eventually Pottermania blew up to such an extent that I felt I would never be able to read it as literature, as opposed to a media marketing tool. I gave up and skipped out on the communal reading experience when the books came out and the communal viewing experience when the films came out. The series really just felt like traditional kiddie fantasy that had become yet another piece of cool literary sensation.

Now, a year after the final movie was released,  the books have now made way for other literary pop culture phenomenons. I decided to try the books again but now with a mindset that was uninfluenced by the series' media hype.Right now I've just finished (or rather devoured) Prisoner of Azkaban, the third book in the series, and I'm shocked by how different my reading experience is this time around.

The fact of the matter is that everything people have said about the books, independently from their media legacy, is true. From a strictly literary perspective, the series is outstanding.  Each book strategically drops red herrings as the plot develops, cleverly making readers think they know where the action is headed but subverting it as the book reaches its conclusion. Rowling also knows exactly where her narrative is headed. In the books I've read of late I've found too many instances where the author seems to be in search of a story, desperately trying to find any device to fill in  narrative gaps. This is far from the case with Harry Potter where each small narrative plot detail is crucial to the central plot at hand.


More importantly for me, however, is how the series engages with both its child and adult readers. Like Roald Dahl ,one of my favourite children's book authors, Rowling does not talk down to her young readers. There is no protective "sugar coating" in the world of Harry Potter.  As enchanting as Hogwarts is, it's not a safe or completely idealistic place. It's a space where children will experience the same realities and learn the same values they should learn as they themselves grow up. Death, for instance, is a constant reality at the school and, as with real life, the characters cannot use magic as a means of escaping it. In dealing with such issues, however, the books are also refreshingly free of cynicism. This is because the more somber parts of the narrative are balanced out by the conventional values which are preached in children's literature but in a way which is unforced, subtle and poignant. Finding self worth and maintaining friendships isn't always easy in Harry Potter but when each of the characters do recognize their abilities and find strength in one another, the books become pure inspiration for young readers, minus the shmaltz and didacticism which is ordinarily a standard convention for this genre.

What about adults then? What do we have to gain from the magical world of Harry Potter? I could tell you  that we could find pleasure in dissecting the books, identifying their relevance to socio-political themes in our society, just like with The Hunger Games. The books certainly have enough in them to lend themselves to such an analysis. However, I think to read the series from this perspective devalues its heartfelt nature. No matter what your age you're never too old to learn the lessons which are at the heart of Harry Potter and the beauty of the series lies in the fact that the adult characters (just like the adult readers) learn and grow along with the children as they too search for their place in the world.

 In many ways the Harry Potter series reminds me of one my favourite books, J.D. Salinger's Catcher In The Rye. Like Holden Caulfield, the protagonist of Catcher, the characters of Harry Potter, both young and old, are constantly searching for meaning, both within themselves and the world around them. Behind the heroism and magic, the Harry Potter series has a literary soul of the highest order and no amount of merchandising can take that away from it.

Source for pic 1: http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/pages-8/Warner-Brothers-considering-American-reboot-of-Harry-Potter-franchise-Scrape-TV-The-World-on-your-side

Source for pic 2: http://www.metroactive.com/papers/cruz/07.27.05/potter-0530.html

Colors of the Wind: The Racially Problematic Endings of 'Pocahontas' and 'Fox & the Hound'

Besides the fact that they're both products of the House of Mouse (aka Disney), The Fox & the Hound (1981)  and  Pocahontas (1996) appear to have little in common. The one film's about, well,the friendship between a fox and a hound and the other is a reinvention of a 17th century historical narrative about the relationship between a Native American woman and an Englishman. Even the music in the two films is different. Fox is a quieter film, defined musically by the cutsey song When you're the Best of Friends, sung by the fox's kindly owner. Pocahontas, on the other hand, is all about the big ballads, particularly the eco-friendly Colors of the Wind. What the two films do share in common, however, is that the relationships in both are ill-fated. Their endings are fairly unconventional for films in the Disney stable which ordinarily provide quickish fix's for problems of class, prejudice, magic or (in the case of The Little Mermaid) incompatible body parts. The general goal of a Disney film is for all couples to find their "Happily Ever After" together. Why then do the characters of Fox and Pocahontas find their version of "Happily Ever After" apart from one another? Why are their endings bittersweet as opposed to sweet?

Now I hate to jump to conclusions here but I wonder if the unconventional Disney endings in these films have anything to do with the fact that, at their heart, both films are about race, a subject which has proven to be the bane of Disney since its existence. Though there has been news articles which have contested this, it's well known that the great Walt Disney was allegedly a racist and an anti-Semite. According to Wikipedia, though Disney donated to several Jewish charities, he allied himself with an anti-communist/ anti-Semitic organization and  extended an open invitation to Hollywood to Nazi propaganda filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. More specifically, it's alleged that some of his earlier cartoons, such as The Three Little Pigs purposely made use of ethnic stereotypes. A review of a biography on Disney on the website for Bloomberg Business Week Magazine also briefly mentions that Disney was against hiring African-Americans because they would "spoil the illusion of Disneyland". If these allegations are true, is it not possible that the endings of Fox and Pocahontas purposely abide by the Disney "moral" code?

Perhaps to an even further extent than the more recent Princess & the Frog, the first Disney film with an African-American princess, Pocahontas is a film that probably had old Walt rolling in his grave. The very "threat" of an interracial relationship is one that brings the world of Disney closer to social realities, steering away from the fantastical world of genies, fairies and talking animals. If Disney's successors were to have followed the original Pocahontas story more closely, Walt would have probably had an even greater meltdown. It is alleged that though, in reality,  young Pocahontas was captured unwillingly by the English,  she eventually began to follow many of the conventions of English culture. She changed her name to Rebecca , practiced Christianity and married an Englishman, John Rolfe. This historical blueprint would have provided the perfect outlet for the 'powers that be' at Disney to conceptualize a Disney-friendly ending for Pocahontas and John Smith. Yet the hurdles faced in this kind of relationship are ones that can't be solved through magic. They involve very different social, cultural and spiritual backgrounds learning to co-exist with one another. While it's perfectly okay for Beauty & the Beast to preach a message of inner beauty because the beast turns into a handsome prince at the end, the story of Pocahontas is one that provokes far too many challenges and sacrifices for the film's couple. Therefore, instead of providing a standard Disney ending which preaches that racial boundaries and prejudices can be overcome, Disney settled for a "safer" ending that encourages a strange, contradictory message of acceptance and, simultaneously, disassociation. In other words, the message is "we should accept others but limit our associations them". This is certainly quite a bizarre message for Disney to impart on young viewers.

Fox is a more curious case than Pocahontas because usually talking animals are a safer bet than people of color. It would have been quite easy for the team behind the film to reunite Todd the Fox and Copper the Hound. They could have very easily promoted a " true friendship can overcome all obstacles" type of message. Yet, Todd and Copper return to their designated roles of the hunter and the hunted, despite Copper nobly sparing Todd's life. Perhaps this goes back to a period where Disney was even more sensitive about its attachment to themes of race. Though not as easily recognized, a friendship between two animals with distinctly differing roles in the circle of life would have provided as many real obstacles as a relationship between Pocahontas and John Smith. Again the only way to avoid such obstacles is to provide the tale with a "safer" ending where Todd and Copper maintain some form of comradeship but find that their original friendship bond is irreparable. More than a decade later The Lion King would promote the unconventional friendship bond between Timon the meerkat  and Pumba the warthog. Clearly back in the eighties world of Disney though, bonds between animals of different breeds were as taboo as interracial relationships between humans.

Now that Disney's had it's first film with an African-American princess, it will be interesting to see in what direction it goes. Will we see more racially friendly Disney films? Or will Disney return to its racially conscious roots as it steps into a future where their 2D animated musicals are now becoming obsolete.

Source for pic 1:http://thetalkingmirror.com/biased-reviews-teddy-roosevelt-reviews-disneys-pocahontas

Source for pic 2: http://www.fanpop.com/spots/the-fox-and-the-hound/images/14125212/title/fox-hound-photo

Info on Disney and Pocahontas: Wikepedia

Link for Disney book review: http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2006-12-03/walts-not-so-wonderful-world

Zapiro's 'Fifty Shades'

After writing last week's post, "Why Zapiro Has Nothing On Madam & Eve" , I was told by a couple of friends that my judgement of Zapiro was a bit unfair and the high praise I gave to Madam & Eve ( at least in relation to the recent strips that have been published) wasn't completely well deserved. There were indeed some very good points made. Zapiro and Madam & Eve are very different comic strips. Madam & Eve is a particularly narrative based strip with intentionally subtle satire, while Zapiro falls more specifically under the category of 'statement art'. His satire is meant to be hard, fast and strictly based on a specific visual as opposed to a narrative. Therefore to compare the two strips might be a similar case to comparing 'apples and oranges'. On another note, since the departure of Harry Dugmore from the Madam & Eve team, the strip has declined in quality somewhat. Though still amusing, the strips I've read do seem to lack a certain charisma and energy that the comic used to have. All the elements are still there but the punchlines certainly aren't as anticipated and rewarding as they were before.I also agree that Zapiro (or rather Jonathan Shapiro) does have his moments of brilliance in his dual roles as cartoonist and satirist.




However, the latest cartoon to stimulate an uproar from both the government and the public proves that, as clever as his work may be, even Shapiro has his Fifty Shades. I guess this is a term I'm going to use to describe all works that employ crass and pointless representations of sex and genitalia. In the case of the latest controversial Zapiro cartoon, this term is particularly appropriate. Its take on the Jacob Zuma/ Brett Murray debarkle in relation to the upcoming Social Cohesion Summit has many parallels with E.L. James's steamy bestseller Fifty Shades of Grey which I have discussed in two previous posts, " Fifty Shades of Shame" and "In Defense of Fifty Shades of Grey. Take a look at the cartoon as proof:









The primary weakness of the writing in Fifty Shames is that, when her narrative fails her, James resorts to putting the novel's many S&M scenes into literary overdrive, overindulging unnecessarily in graphic details. She does this, of course, to hide the fact that her novel is really just a conventional Danielle Steele-like romance. Zapiro's weakness here is very similar. The well of ideas for the week had clearly dried up and, in desperation, Shapiro turned to the trusted image of Zuma's penis to compensate for his creative dry spell. In his mind he might have thought that the idea of Zuma in penis form was "clever" enough to hide the inconsistencies of this cartoon. Or maybe he actually thought he was being really, really "clever" by pushing this image to the extreme. Why not jump further onto the Murray bandwagon and push the conservative values of South African society to their limits?




Whatever the case, the biggest flaw of the cartoon, for me, is not the penis but rather the juvenile poem that is written besides it. The skill of a cartoonist relies on the strength of their visuals to transmit a message. When words make up the bulk of the cartoon, particularly in Zapiro, the cartoonist has clearly failed in creating his satire. This, for me, is definitely the case here. Much of the poem is entirely unnecessary except for the last line- "He's as big a dick as we thought" which is central to the poem's punchline. Yet this line itself is problematic.The ANC Women's League was right in finding fault with Shapiro using the word "we", presuming that South Africans are a collective voice which share his perspective. I ,for one, do share this perspective but a large majority of South Africans, as we all know, have found The Spear to be completely disrespectful to Zuma's dignity. For them it's not a matter of free expression but, rather, tasteless exploitation. As I have stated previously, Zapiro is a platform for a one-man soapbox. In this cartoon, however, Shapiro makes the mistake of thinking that he is the voice of the people which is far from the truth.




In looking at the Zapiro 'Jacob's Dick' cartoon, I share the ANC's perception in the sense that I too find it a piece of tasteless exploitation. However, this is not based on the belief that Shapiro is being a 'dick'by insulting the president's dignity. It's based on the fact that this cartoon is either really just an innately flawed and lame cry for attention or just a matter of scraping the creative barrel. Like Fifty Shades, the cartoon presents a very conventional liberal point of view ( actually a pretty dead horse) covered up in smut. If Shapiro thinks it's a work of comic genius, he is sorely mistaken.

Baby, Baby, Baby: The Fetishisation of Justin Bieber

There's a term in film theory called scopophilia. In its most basic form scopophila refers to the pleasure of looking at naked bodies. In Visual Pleasures and Narrative Cinema, film theorist Laura Mulvey has appropriated the term to specifically encompass the notion of the male gaze. Essentially she suggests that in film, the camera has a particular gender (male) and that its role is to appease the spectator by filming the  female's body in such a way that it becomes a product of  sexual and fetishistic pleasure. Sadly, I think that in this period  Mulvey's theory needs to be reworked to accomodate a body that is not female, namely the body of Justin Bieber.

Much fuss has been made of how rubbish the Biebster's music is and how he represents little more than  a commercialized boy crush for (mostly) pre-teen girls. Yet few people stop to question how this image of Justin Bieber was conceived in the first place. The fact of the matter is that Mr Bieber exemplifies the concept of a fetish object. Though his music videos and concert tours are filmed in a way which makes them appear family-friendly, they're actually selling a kiddie brand of sex. The various close-ups of his face (particularly the hair and the eyes) in the various media we see him in seem innocent enough and, indeed, they are. Except for the fact that he is constantly lit and, by extension, performs in a way which sexualizes this innocence in  specific ways. Whenever we see Bieber he's either surrounded by soft lighting or strobe lights (or, in the case of his latest music video, both). That makes him forced to perform two types of "innocence". When he is softly lit, he is angelic and sensitive, the kind of boy every mother would want their pre-teen daughter to marry. When he is in strobe lights he remains angelic but also playful, maybe veering ever so slightly towards danger.

 These two "innocent" faces of Bieber are at constant odds with one another when he's on stage. It's kind of hard to be squeaky clean choir boy and a  flirty version of  'Dennis the Menace' at the same time. Yet as Bieber, his manager, his camera crew and his fans know, the only way for him to stay in the limelight is to play both roles. That way he becomes the fetish object of both the good Christian girl and the slightly more rebellious pre-teen girl, the kind who wants to accelerate her growth a little faster than it actually should. In his latest music video for Boyfriend we see exactly what an uneasy mix these two "innocent" identities create when they're forced to play together. We see particularly in this video how Bieber battles to be cutsey on the verge of sexy. Let's face it though, he really doesn't know what sexy is. Nor does he really know what cutsey is. He barely had time to learn what those things are while he was hanging out in the recording studio. All he knows is that there's a camera there and he's its object, a product of its gaze. Just like Mulvey's proverbial woman who plays the fetishized object on a film screen, Bieber is aware of only one thing: it's the camera's world. He just lives in it.

Source for Photo 1: http://www.people.com/people/justin_bieber/0,,,00.html

Source for Photo 2: http://www.ebreviews.com/your-justin-bieber-adventure-begins-here-2-1356.html

The 'Power' of the Mask in 'Batman Returns'

It is a truth universally acknowledged that if you ask anyone what their favourite movie in the Batman canon is they'll say Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight. Don't get me wrong, it's an excellent film. Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker was exceptional and the film's subtext provided nuanced and complex observations about the nature of justice and morality. Yet the film is not without its flaws. For starters, it's too long. The two and a half hour running time could have been cut down by at least half- an- hour. More importantly, as powerful as the film is, it's also very heavy-handed and most of the characters get lost within the grand Greek tragedy that Nolan plays out. As great as a thinking man's Batman is, I've always thought that an ideal Batman movie is one that hides a more intimate story within its grand narrative, one which allows us to see how the superhero and super- villain roles link to our own vulnerabilities and anxieties. That's why, even if Dark Knight is the better film, Tim Burton's Batman Returns will always have a special place in my Bat loving heart.




Thinking back on it, Batman Returns is a forgotten relic next to the other films in the franchise. What most people remember about the Batman years prior to the rise of the Nolan films is Joel Shumacher's awful take on the series in Batman Forever and (the even worse) Batman & Robin. Those films turned Batman into a pantomime, gracing the screen with overly bright colours, horrendous overacting and entirely unnecessary shots of Batman's metallic underwear. Batman & Robin, as everyone knows, is perhaps the most shameful work of George Clooney's career ( though I imagine his stint in those killer tomatoes movies is somewhat worse).









What people tend to forget, however, is that before Shumacher, a young visionary director named Tim Burton kicked off the franchise, fresh off his work on the horror comedy Beetlejuice. Admittedly the first film, simply entitled Batman, isn't anything special. As great and over-the-top as Jack Nicholson is in the role of the Joker, it's pretty much Jack just being Jack. As much fun as it is seeing him in a purple suit and clown make-up at the beginning of the film, the novelty wears off as the movie drags to its conclusion. Burton also made the mistake of casting Kim Basinger as Bruce Wayne/ Batman's love interest. It was a boring role for, quite frankly, a rather boring actress. The film's only real surprise was that it showed that comedian Michael Keaton could actually pull off the Batman role with the sex appeal and intensity it deserved.




Cut to three years later when Batman Returns bounced onto the screen. Thankfully Burton ditched Nicholson and Basinger to make way for what was to be a far more inspired cast of characters and plot. In Batman Returns, Batman's two main opponents are the grotesque Penguin/ Oswald Cobblepot (Danny De Vito) and manic and sexy Catwoman/ Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer). The film is driven by these three characters' desires. Batman/ Bruce desires truth and justice, motivated by the witnessing of his parents traumatic deaths when he was a child. Penguin/ Oswald desires acceptance after being abandoned by his parents as a child, an act which caused him to be raised by penguins in a sewer. Catwoman/ Selina is driven by a similar need for acceptance and justice though, in this case, it stems from an overwhelming need to escape a life of inferiority and loneliness. Aiming to fulfill these desires, these three damaged characters play dangerous games with both themselves and one another, against the backdrop of a gloomy and creepy Gotham city. It's the kind of environment that's typical of the film-noir genre. There are very few traces of light throughout the film. Both the exteriors and interiors of the city are constantly submerged in darkness and shadows. It's the perfect visual representation of the anger, torment and desperation these characters feel.










What you can tell by these elements of the narrative is that though this is a Batman film, the politics and struggles of Gotham city and its citizens are secondary to the psychological drama at hand as our three protagonists seek desperate refuge in the form of masks in order to find an outlet to both wrestle with and hide their inner torment.The film's actions scenes are contrasted with deeply personal and damaging ones which, unlike in many superhero films, are grounded in authentic and identifiable psychological realities. For instance, Selina's transformation into Catwoman is not triggered by unfortunate contact with some technological innovation or mythical creature (though that is the cause in the awful Halle Berry Catwoman movie). Here it is triggered by a nervous breakdown as Selina, disillusioned by her tragic cat-lady lifestyle , tears her apartment apart, ridding it of all the toy animals and doll houses which are emblematic of her repressed existence. When she creates the catsuit, it becomes symbolic of her desperate need to escape her anxieties and vulnerabilities through an alternative identity which is sexy, confident but ultimately just as troubled and broken as her true identity. As the film develops we follow the consistent tension between Selina, Oswald and Bruce's true identities and those of their alter egos, aware of the tragedy that will eventually befall them. That tragedy, of course, is that the masks they seek comfort from will ultimately betray them and their true identities will be lost and irreparable.




Though The Dark Knight does show us this same destructive tension between the hero/ villains' true identities and alter egos, it feels very secondary to Nolan's preaching about the flaws of justice and morality on a grander scale which is somewhat isolated from the characters. Because Batman Returns , at its centre, tells a much smaller, more intricate and personal story than Dark Knight, this tension is more fully realized. By doing so, the film identifies what inevitably attracts us to superhero narratives: the fact that we ourselves have a constant desire to be masked and explore different versions of ourselves. We believe that masking protects us from our fears and vulnerabilities. Yet, as Batman Returns shows us, a mask is more a curse than it is an escape.

Source for Photo 1: http://www.comicvine.com/myvine/batuniverse/all-images/108-538522/batman_returns_suit/105-2004377/

Source for Photo 2: http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Batman_Returns_Villains

Why 'Zapiro' has nothing on 'Madam and Eve'

I have to admit, I really don't see what all the hype around Zapiro is about. Sure, Jonathan Shapiro is an immensely talented cartoonist.  The hyperbolic way in which he represents political events and figures is clever and often very funny. On occasion he also provides interesting insights into particular situations. Yet, for me, the problem with Zapiro is that, despite the talent behind it, it's not a true reflection on South African society. It's predominantly an outlet for a one man soapbox, a platform to make a statement but nothing beyond this.

This is why it surprises me that Madam & Eve which, in many respects, is a far superior cartoon, is becoming increasingly forgotten in the wake of Zapiro's rising popularity. The reason for Madam & Eve's decline is perhaps attributed to the fact that it does not take the hardened approach to politics that Zapiro does. Yes, politics remains a central component of Madam & Eve but it's utilized in a softer, more playful and (some may argue) a less complex manner than Zapiro. Let's for instance take a look at  the Zapiro cartoon of the almost long forgotten Brett Murray scandal from a month ago:

In this cartoon Zapiro satirize Jacob Zuma and the ANC's victory over Murray, the Goodman Gallery and The City Press by digging deep into the trenches of Russian history to draw a parallel between Zuma's actions and those of Joseph Stalin (ironically the 'Spear' painting itself is modelled after the campaign posters of Vladimir Lenin, Stalin's predecessor). This cartoon  merges provocative historical narrative  with our present political realities,  emphasizing that history is continuously repeating itself, even if it is in a subtler form. In Madam & Eve Zuma's anxiety about the painting is presented in a more tongue-in-cheek form:

Here Madam & Eve does some  semi-historical mapping as it attempts to find some common ground between the Spear incident and the infamous Bill Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky scandal. The key to our enjoyment of the cartoon, however, does not rely on taking on an academic approach as we analyse the continuities between past and present histories as we do with the Zapiro cartoon. Rather, it's about indulging in the very intimate, candid and casual conversation between Zuma and Clinton. That's the thing with Madam & Eve: even when it's political, it's actually all about the personal.

The personal angle is essentially Zapiro's weakness. Shapiro knows how to push a political agenda and inspire controversy but he does not know how to capture everyday lives, the small and vital elements that make up the psychological and social make-up of every South African. On the other hand, Stephen Francis and Rico, the creators of Madam & Eve have a keen sense of how to transform mundane social conversations, drinking, cleaning and even sleeping into exceptional comedy. Whether it be exchanges between politicians, Madam and Eve's salary disputes or Mother Anderson's gin and tonic addiction, no aspect of daily life goes unexplored in Madam & Eve. On that note, no South African voice goes unrepresented in the comic strip either. The primary characters of course are Madam (aka Gwen Anderson) who represents the voice of the suburban wife, Eve who represents the lifestyle of the average domestic worker and Mother Anderson who fulfills the role of the sometimes disenchanted foreigner. Yet there are a multitude of supporting characters who give each demographic their respective moment in the comic spotlight. Most impressively children are not treated as mere appendages to the adults. As represented through the eyes of little Thandi, children are shown to be just as politically and socially aware as the adults of the comic strip and the way Thandi uses her innocence to navigate through socio-political situations is comic gold.

This, however, is not the only impressive aspect of Madam & Eve. See, in many instances, it is also a cartoon about the process and pressures that form part of the comic producing process. When in the past Francis, Rico and Harry Dugmore (another writer on the team who left a couple of years ago) got a bout of writers block, they marooned Madam and Eve on a desert island. In a stroke of genius, Madam and Eve were made well aware of their creators writing troubles and we empathized with them as they scrambled to find appropriate punchlines to fill the fourth panel. In another cartoon, the creators demonstrated how they were toying with ideas for a Madam & Eve spin-off. They imagined Madam and Eve in a variety of different contexts. In one panel it was Adam and Eve, in another it was Adam and Steve and, most surprisingly, Saddam and Eve even got a mention. In that particular panel Saddam Hussein was seen shouting at Eve to do  his ironing. Unsurprisingly, the personal yet again became part of the political and the comic strip merged social reality with a meta-comic narrative.

The fact of the matter is that though it is more subtle and happy, Madam and Eve has an accessibility and intelligence that Zapiro lacks in comparison. It understands the charm and perils of being a South African citizen and has an honesty which is often rarely found in comics of its nature. It's just a damn shame that in all the Zapiro hype, readers have let it slip through their fingers.

Source for picture one: http://www.zapiro.com/Cartoons/32622-zuma
Source for picture two: http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2012/05/south-african-scandal-acquires-us.html
Source for picture three: http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2006_04_01_archive.html