Aaron Darc, whose work will be familiar to LPers from his incarnation as Eye on Big Brother, recently interviewed film maker Morgan Spurlock. Spurlock came to prominence with Super Size Me and his new film Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? will be released in Australia next week. You can read more of Aaron’s writing at Pop Psychology for Beautiful People.
MORGAN & THE MULTIPLEX
From fat to fatwah, Murgon Spurlock has lost the pounds he gained for his smash-hit, Super Size Me, and hired himself a camel, for his latest film, Where In The World Is Osama Bin Laden? I caught up with Morgan, this week, on his press tour of Sydney.
My 20 year old brother, Glenn, lives in a distant galaxy from me, on a planet called Regional Suburbia. He likes football, easy girls and fast cars. His favourite film is The Fast & The Furious; he calls it “wicked sh*t.” It would never have dawned on me, it goes without saying, to peruse my brother’s DVD collection. I knew it would be large, and I knew it would have been entirely purchased at JB Hifi; I know probably more than I should about Revolution Plasma and its disturbing power to appeal to the working and middle classes, and replace what would once have been their lives; draining whatever connection to the real world they had, by offering their unconscious longing to escape, a glistening, mostly poisonous, apple. Here, everybody! Plug into this - you’ll find it… easier. You will have a purpose. You will own that 42″ plasma, even if you f*ck yourself up on credit to do it, and you will build thyself a DVD Tower. There, thy shall easily access The Fast & The Furious; it shall keep the company of Face Off, Rush Hour, the Terminator Trilogy and, but of course, the Die Hard Box Set. Got plasma? check. Got plasma tower? Check. Okay, then, you’re all set to waste a good deal of your life plugged right into consumer oblivion. Isn’t modernity just fabulous?!
I only neared my brother’s DVD tower, out of that familiar desperation to escape the reality of my awkward bi-monthly family visit. Somewhere, in between the time your mother has once again implicitly let it be known you’ve not amounted to what you should have, and the moment following eight meaningless remarks about the state of recent weather, you look around the room, and you think, quite simply, “What can I do, here, to pass the time without having to sincerely engage my family?” My brother’s DVD tower seemed like a pretty good idea.
He insisted he accompany me on my perusal; not because he saw an opportunity to forge a bonding moment with his older brother, but because those DVDs were simply too precious to be vulnerable away from the watchful eye of their keeper. It was, therefore, a little more awkward than I intended, but it did, at least, give me somewhere else to focus my gaze.
“Fast & The Furious: Special Collector’s Edition”, I sigh.
“Yep,” he mumbles. My brother speaks in a tone that has left many of my city friends having no idea what this boy has just communicated to them; but I understand bogan speak. I understand bogans. I know how they think. I know, because I was, after all, supposed to be one. I stuck my nose up at destiny, and I simply refused to be white trash. But for eighteen years, they did what they could with me - parented me, educated me, punished me, tried to deal with something it just couldn’t understand. They could never understand me, the bogans I grew up with. But I understood them. I had to, in order to survive. And, for all intents and purposes, I sympathise with them. To a point. I don’t want to live with them, no. But if I was to truly appreciate my family - and I do - I could never subscribe to inner city elitism and contempt. In so many ways, I think this has served me well.
My index finger brushes, slowly, killing as much time as possible, down a trail of DVD jackets: movies I have not seen, nor would want to. There’s a part of me that thinks, “Oh, Aaron, you’re so pretentious”, and a part of me that wants to remind my brother that I really enjoyed Harry Potter at Imax (regardless of how much this had to do with being so stoned in front of a ten story screen), and gee, I mean, doesn’t that prove how DTE I am? But, of course, he wouldn’t know why I was bothering to disclaim myself, anyway - or, alternatively, persecute with such an inner city elitism. So culturally isolated is my brother, he knows not of the argument against his mind, for he has - with the exception of his brother - never come across it.
“Have you seen Scary Movie?” he asks. “It’s sick. You should see it.”
“I don’t think so,” I murmured quietly (and, no doubt, pretentiously).
And then, something leaped out at me. I think it was in between Saw IV and Jackass 2, and it seemed to be grossly out of place in my brother’s DVD tower.
“Super Size Me?” I asked.
Admittedly, I had not seen Super Size Me, but if anyone was to place a bet on which of the Darc boys had this doco in their DVD tower, you can rest assured most would put their money on me. But, in truth, I’d never bothered with it, because, at the end of the day, I don’t need a two hour film to give me any more reasons not to eat McDonald’s. I don’t, and I never will; my happy meals are a memory of my childhood I have accepted will never again be tasted.
However, I admired the phenomenon the film had become - particularly, from within the marketing industry I was, at that time, a part of, where its impact was undeniable. That film was the ultimate PR nightmare. I loved it for this, alone; I didn’t care what it was actually like. Its cultural influence was so vivid, I would go as far as calling its impact “quantifiable” - something most “social crusade” docos cannot say about their effect. McDonald’s, the film’s iconic target, poured millions of their dirty, dirty cash into countering the arguments in - well, der - completely over the top advertising campaigns, designed to lull its hungry believers into dismissing Spurlock as yet another crazy Lefty with a chip on his shoulder. Beyond even this impressive feat, I would go as far as crediting it with the changes that have occurred, in recent years, in both its menus and, yes, its branding. I didn’t need to see it - this movie rocked.
But whatever was it doing in my brother’s DVD tower? Why would an 18 year old bogan footballer from Maitland think it rocked? My brother is many things - some of these, I love him for - but political or, heaven forbid, “socially conscious”, is something I’ve never used to describe him.
Glenn sums up his fondness for the movie, thus: “He eats nothin’ but Macca’s, and he ends up gettin’ fat and nearly killing himself! It’s fully sick,” he beamed in sweet remembrance of Morgan Spurlock’s daring act. “He’s crazy,” he added, in that strange code of ocher masculinity that values men stupid enough to inflict self-harm for the sake of a show. It was amazing, and it would never have dawned on me: the boys loved Super Size Me, in the same consumer mindset that led them to froth at the mouth over the Jackass films.
My brother had sat down for that DVD, having absolutely no interest, whatsoever, in learning the horrible truth behind the deadly propaganda of one of the most vile multinationals on Earth. Whatever, dude. He just thought that some guy screwing his system with junk food was “fully sick”. But, in the process, he learned a truth about one of the most vile multinationals on Earth.
“Do you eat McDonald’s?” I asked him, interested as to the impact of the film’s actual message.
“Na,” he screwed his face up, “It’s garbage. You should see what it’s really like - they just lie through their teeth. It’s hysterical, you should watch it.”
And, sure, he then went on to tell me that now, having seen the light of McDonald’s propaganda, he instead eats… yes… KFC (”And Hungry Jacks, if I really feel like a hamburger,” he added; “The burgers are better”). Still, he had responded affirmatively to the message of this film - it had gone so far as to change one of his behaviours. I think that’s… well… fully sick.
What I admired, from this point on, in Super Size Me, was its branding genius. It fought fire with fire. It spoke to those under the spell, in a language those under the spell could actually understand and, even more, enjoy engaging. There was an actual communication that went on with exactly the kind of people who needed communicating to. How much contemporary left-wing media does that, do you think? Not much, I’d say.
Had Morgan Spurlock one-upped the Holy Michael Moore? Interestingly enough, Spurlock, upon our meeting, would remind me of the vast difference in the success of his films, in comparison to the powerhouse performance of Fahrenheit 9/11 - however successful Super Size Me was, it pales in comparison to Moore’s infamous swipe at Dubya Bush. All very well; in today’s pop culture, bums on seats don’t necessarily correlate with social impact. I couldn’t help but wonder if Spurlock admired the success of Fahrenheit, because he had enough of an ego to envy the size of Moore’s popstar spotlight (and, sure, the kaching that happens, as result of that spotlight). But, even so, I personally believe that Spurlock has the right to boast of being responsible for the film, in this latest trend of left-wing pop culture docos, that has actually had the most impact on its intended audience, and on the actual issue it addresses. I’m sure Spurlock likes a big spotlight; but I sensed a man who has enough passion in his causes, that this feat would mean something to him, as well.
I declined watching my brother’s DVD, that day, because, really, the point was the actual search. What, you think I’m going to lock myself in for 2 hours on the lounge with my family? Um… no. I would finally see the film, not too long ago, on mainstream primetime TV. And, yes, it didn’t do a great deal for me - as I had expected. McDonald’s is bad for you. Yep. That’s right. But I was impressed that I could “happen” to accidentally catch this film on primetime TV, spliced with cheesy ads for dodgy gym equipment, Coca-Cola and credit card scams. Through their plasmas, Spurlock found them. They happily plugged in. The man deserves credit for that.
Last weekend, I was asked to interview Spurlock, in regards to his latest film, Where In The World Is Osama Bin Laden? Naturally, I agreed.
First, I had to see the film. I was shown a screener DVD at the distributor’s headquarters (do you know how difficult bittorrent has made a movie reviewer’s life? They certainly don’t hand out the DVD’s, anymore), and for 90 minutes, I trailed along with Spurlock, throughout all the major regions and countries of The Middle East, to find Osama Bin Laden. Well, okay - naturally, Spurlock doesn’t have a hope in hell in actually finding the guy; despite its clever (obvious) PR drool, it was always clearly just a clever subtext for… gosh… an ironic and profound discovery, etc, etc.
What Spurlock discovers, as he treks through the Middle East, is that the world, culture and lives that he, as a modern American, has been led to believe is a certain way - the demonisation of Islaam - are, in fact, not so different to You & Me™. “Oh my God,” this all-American guy realises; “I’ve been lied to! Let’s all transcend the propaganda of our governments and make a better world for our children! Heal the world, and stuff. Let’s make it a better race. You know, for You™, and Me™, and, like, the entire Human Race™!”
It’s brilliant. Yes, yes, it’s all terribly obvious to many of us, in a context like this website. But the pitch is a f*cking killer. I asked Spurlock if he had come across any resistance, when getting the idea off the ground, because it seemed like an obvious question. But, when he told me that he had, in fact, had very little, I thought it perfectly believable. If I was a rich man looking for a new left-wing pop culture doco to make a killing, I’d walk out of his pitch, tres impressed.
And, surely, I’m being obvious, too, right? You know where I’m getting at for any of you lefties, out there, reading this? It comes down to something we have discussed a lot, here, and a topic particularly relevant to my time as The Eye, turning analytic attention to one of the worst shows on television. These films, like so many contemporary left-wing products, present themselves as agents of social change. On the whole, the lefties (perhaps, quite naively) buy into the idea (as it is sold to them, mind you) that they are. Yes, some of those films - mainly Moore’s - made a tonne of cash, but it usually comes from the pockets of those who walk in to those films, already agreeing with the argument. I’m sorry, I just don’t see the point. Enjoy them as the cultural manifestation of your subculture and mindset; but don’t fool yourself into thinking anyone on the right is actually listening to Michael Moore. They’re not. His ego is proportionate only to the size of his spotlight - not the changes he has made to this world. He empowered and strengthened the left, most certainly - and that’s not a bad thing, as such - but he didn’t really change anyone’s minds.
“Do you like Michael Moore?” I asked my brother.
He screwed his face up, as if to question the seriousness with which I could pose him a question with such an obvious answer. “That fat panzy? He’s a f*cking loser.”
Michael Moore, perhaps by his own nature, doesn’t really deliver the message to those who most need it. Morgan Spurlock, however, has proved that he can. The question is, can he do it, the second time round? Does the experience of Where In The World Is Osama Bin Laden fully realise the brilliance of the concept and pitch?
At first, a quick google search turned up an apparent answer: no. The movie, now having finished its US theatrical release, pulled in just on $250,000 (US). Super Size Me pulled 11 million. The reviews didn’t offer much more hope: Super Size Me scoring an impressive 96% on Rottentomatoes.com, compared to 35% for Where In The World?
Spurlock seemed both disgruntled and unfazed, during our interview, by the truth that neither of us actually said out loud: the film had been heralded by press as a “flop”. When I had mentioned only recently seeing Super Size Me, because I had caught a primetime run on my plasma, his eyes lit up; “But that’s where it really found most the people. When it hit TV and DVD, suddenly it was everywhere.” This may seem an obvious hope for a man who had followed up 11 million with Where In The World’s comparitively measly $250,000, whilst waiting for a DVD success that could only, for now, be imagined; but, in all fairness, after comparing Super Size Me’s final gross DVD and Network sales, he speaks the truth: the film eventually took a further 27 million from post-theatre profits. And he soon corrected my ignorance, by assuring me that “documentaries never make their money at the cinemas, though - none of them do. It’s always on DVD”. Here we were, again (talking about the same thing, after all). But, again, he’s right. Most docos never get to see a silver screen, at all, let alone make money off it. It’s through those plasmas that he finds them. I actually got the feeling, at one stage, that he was now waiting through the cinematic release in hope of this new film finding people like my brother, again.
What interested me about the film’s cinematic release - and its US failure - was that, if we are to analyse them with the mind of a marketing analyst (allow me), the demographic split in these left-wing pop culture products suggests that the comparison between $250,000 to 11 million says very little of his target market - the mainstream - and much more of those who comprise his theater demographic. Who knows what my brother will think of this film? Once it’s out on DVD, I’ll let you know. But what we do know is that the left-wing audience - the young modern intellectuals, the protesters, the bohemians, the serious and “enlightened” movie reviewers, etc, etc - haven’t taken to this film, whenever it has been screened in cinemas around the world.
The reviews and articles I read, in preparation for this interview, all suggested this. To say they were “scathing” is somewhat of an understatement. I expected the right-wing deconstructions of the “lies” of this movie - and I found some - but most of the criticism, this time round, comes from the very people who you would presume were on his side.
“Spurlock tells you virtually nothing you didn’t already know,” quips Owen Gleiberman; “And, what’s more, he does it with catchy videogame graphics (Osama boogying to ”U Can’t Touch This”) and faux-naive man-on-the-street interviews that make Michael Moore look like Chet Huntley. Where in the World Is Osama bin Laden? should have been called The Post-9/11 World for Dummies.” Ouch.
“I wish he’d just forget about himself and his alleged “wit” (his first film was “Super Size Me”) and build a movie around his wondrous interview techniques,” sighs Washington Post’s Stephen Hunter. “‘Where in the World Is Osama Bin Laden?’ is so infantile you expect the answer to be, ‘Not at my house!’”, he jokes, displaying his alleged wit. “It isn’t helped by a frequently screened scene of director-writer-producer-narcissicist Morgan Spurlock standing outside a cave in Afghanistan whispering ‘Osama? Osama, are you there?’”
Chicago Reader’s J. R. Jones was even less forgiving; “It’s a little insulting to all the real reporters who’ve died in the field looking for hard information, not weak indie comedy.”
Never one to take gospel from American press, I instead turned to some of the lefties I know, here, who had already seen the film (best not to ask “how” they’d seen it). Most of them scowled at the film and its maker, declaring the film “pointless” and “offensive”, and even going as far as calling its maker “a capitalistic nihilist pretending to be a socially conscious warrior.” Double ouch. Gotta look out for those capitalistic nihilists, don’t you?!
At first, I was excited to be meeting Spurlock - someone I had admired, since that day with my brother’s DVD tower - but I grew unsure, the further I read on. I took him for a clever Lefty who actually understood how to penetrate a mindless mainstream with important calls to action - calls his mainstream fans were actually heeding. But was I mistaken? There’s a fine line between the idea I had of Spurlock and… well…. Tim Brunero. The power of the spotlight is great, after all - it does strange things to those who find themselves beneath it.
After viewing the film, it became clearer. Or more confusing. Did I enjoy the film? Not really. Did I learn anything new about the problems it “explored”? Not a thing. Did I find its humour funny? Not for a second. Did I, like so many of the reviewers (”The film’s premise is silly,” argues Jennifer Merin, “and it’s silliness is offensive”), find some of its comedy inappropriate? A couple of times, yes. And, so, it would appear I agree with these critics, in some respect. They are “right”, as such. The film is shallow, yes. It spends too much time on cool graphics and comedy punchlines to ever really go anywhere near anything resembling a “probing documentary”, or even “journalism”. The ending is incredibly contrived - you can feel them edit the narrative, and, if you can see it, the truth of the matter is nothing at all like what the film decides to leave its journey on (including a monologue that any Miss World contestant should be taking notes from). And, yes, it’s sometimes hypocritical: it pleads for us to start understanding and respecting Middle Eastern culture, but at one point, Spurlock is interviewing an Afghani, and after hearing that the region wants to build an amusement park (to bring happiness to the little war-torn children, etc), his response is, “And the slogan could be: ‘It’s The Bomb.’” Boom-boom. I couldn’t help but grimace.
And while I was happy enough to dance around actually saying, “So, this film was a flop in the US”, I was happy enough to tell him the truth; “I can’t say I really got much out of it, personally, no” - which, as you can imagine, brought a pained expression to the face of the PR girl who overhead the comment! “But,” I shrugged, “I’m guess I’m still a Yuppie Lefty from the inner city, at the end of the day. I don’t need to learn its lesson. But I can totally respect what you’re doing, and how those who need to learn it will benefit.”
They will. And that’s still as cool as my brother no longer eating McDonald’s. It’s cooler, in fact - it’s about this horrible era of phobia and fear. How could any Lefty scathe a man who is actually smart enough to realise that nothing is going to be done about that, so long as the lefties sit around with their lattes to their lips, and their heads up their asses, calling such a man a “capitalistic nihilist”? Get a grip, people. You consider yourself a vessel of social truth, but too many of you live in la la land. It really isn’t helping.
Yes, I cringed, when Spurlock smiled, “It’s the bomb”. But my brother will piss himself, laughing. And, like most lefties, I don’t care much for violent video games - and using a faux computer game motif (instead of the old-fashioned aeroplane-across-the-map graphic, a different “arena” is selected in the Osama Bin Laden videogame) didn’t do a great deal for me. But my partner - Generation Tech, if there ever was (and someone who is only just becoming connected to social and political issues, after having to live with someone who spends most of his time complaining about the world) - will think this is fabulous. And its “info”? Barely there. Its summary of Middle Eastern politics? Simplistic, to say the least (though, not untrue, as such). I know more than this film. Much more. I’m not one of the “dummies” Gleiberman referred to in his review. Chances are, neither are you.
But what a telling term, to refer to those people who (oh my God!) don’t understand Middle Eastern politics and, yes, have taken their general perceptions of their culture from opportunistic political propaganda, as “Dummies”. Charming. And, sure, that’s one harsh term from just one American journalist; but it adequately sums up the sentiment you find in any uni cafe, or any Lefty website, where the mainstream (and, yes, here’s that term… the bogans) are looked down upon with such resentment, condescension and, I believe, ultimately detrimental ideas and perceptions. You can think it, if you like, I guess- but you will certainly get nowhere if you comunicate to them with such sentiment, and if you don’t allow yourself to concede and grasp the level at which their understanding operates. Drop the attitude; because those bogans - quite understandably (because they are, funnily enough, human beings, who don’t like being talked down to) - are not going to be too receptive to it. Morgan Spurlock knows this. He knows that my brother will find the whole thing terribly amusing, and walk out feeling endeared to something that wants him to no longer treat The Middle East as the ridiculous source of fear his government has wanted him to buy into, for the past seven years. It’s nothing to scoff at. It says so much that the Left would.
And, just as the mainstream don’t like being hissed at, neither does Morgan Spurlock. The first thing I did, when meeting Spurlock, in retrospect, was perhaps a mistake; but it did reveal to me an interesting facet of the current state of mind of this film-maker. I made it very clear that I was a young Lefty, and explained the context of my interview and the audience it would find - I thought this would actually loosen him up, from one Lefty to another, and grant me access. And I was wrong. In the end - once he realised that I truly was a kindred spirit - we got along tremendously. But, in the beginning, I was met with a clear defensiveness that, listening back, was a reaction to his preconceptions of the archetype I had given him: a bohemian, anti-Bush Lefty. I think that’s a shame that the reaction to his work has now left him dreading his own kind, in so many ways. But, he does. You could feel the flinch in the way he spoke, his stance, the way he presumed there to be more behind what I was asking him than there actually was. He presumed I was going to attack him. I had to make it quite clear that I was not. And, ironically, this seemed to change, once I had spoke of my time in advertising, and how I had finally given up my dayjob to follow my dreams, etc, etc, and how I actually understood and respected what he was doing in his own branding. Yes, Mr Spurlock, I get it. I think it’s fully sick.
“I think it needs to be broken down into real simple ideas… For me, I don’t want to make a movie for somebody who smokes a pipe and wears an ascot, or is at the protests”, he said, evidencing an unfortunate resentment of those who are actually on the same side, ideologically. He chuckled - boom boom - but the sentiment was clear: the pipe-smokers were not exactly his biggest fans of late, and he knew it, and he knew that I, after all, would have known it, also. “I want to make a film for as wide an audience as possible; not for someone who’s on one side of an isle. And hopefully, through comedy, and through the way we tell a story, and through making it not complex or something real deep that you have to be well educated or read the newspaper, every day, to understand, you can reach a real, general audience. I want the guy who sees The Dark Knight to be the same guy who sees Where In The World Is Osama Bin Laden, you know? Because it’s fun, and it’s entertaining, and it’s a MOVIE!”
So, let’s cut to the chase, shall we? I brought up the criticism, directly - partly, to disassociate myself from it and make my position clear - and asked him if he felt the Left who criticised him were actually suffering from an inability to understand the cultural necessity of accessibility. “Yeah, that’s a great point!” he smiled. And from there, Morgan Spurlock and I became - for the intents and purposes of this moment - comrades. Yes, I was a bohemian Lefty. But I wasn’t one of “them”.
From there, he relaxed and felt much more at ease with discussing his intentions and ideas - ideas he would protect in other interviews I had watched, in preparation, with those from my side of the isle. Because even though I’m on one side, I’m talking to that other side. Talking to that other side is important. Knowing how to do that is crucial. And, truth be told, as the interview went on, I relaxed, too. I really dug this guy.
“We have this whole idea of things having to be highbrow,” he cringed, “…and I don’t buy into that. I think if you really want to reach people, you have to make it something that everybody likes.” Spurlock’s trick, here, is to actually find the common ground, to effectively place himself in the same side of that isle, and connect to the simplistic side of movie-going. “People like chocolate and vanilla, and I like chocolate and vanilla. So, I think you have to really make it easy. And, at the same time, make it cool!”
Granted, this connection is made easier for Spurlock, because he does seem to sincerely have a side to him that - in a terribly American way, perhaps - is into his “cool”. I’m not that kind of cool. For me, “cool” is underground Berlin electronica. He talked of his love for Summer blockbusters, alongside his enjoyment of the serious documentaries and arthouse (we equally loved The Savages and The Ice Storm, and had our movie-buff moment in worshiping these films), and, perhaps, the apparent paradox of his cultural morphing abilities is rooted in some sincerity - enough to make it easy for him to make films that are, as he aspires to make, “easy”. I can’t say I share his love for Ironman, nor, like Spurlock, am waiting to see Wal-E. In a moment of connection, all I could really offer was that I really enjoyed getting stoned and watching Harry Potter at Imax. He thought that would be pretty cool. Perhaps, I’m a bit cooler than I thought.
At the end of the day, however much he naturally feels the wounds of his detractors (despite our facades, most of us do, after all), Spurlock’s head is on his shoulders, and as long as he finds that mainstream audience his films are aimed at, he’s no doubt happy he has achieved his goal. He insists that, when making his films, such criticism (most of it erupting online, needless to say) plays no part in the way he puts his films together. Instead, he confessed, the only voice managing to mark the finished product, at all, are test audiences. “I’m a big believer in test screenings,” he nodded; here, he tests out his films and observes how they “play with an audience”. This would be fodder for anyone who thinks Spurlock to be a “capitalistic nihilist” (I really don’t know where the nihilism comes into it, but never mind): the image of a man happily changing his work for the knee-jerk reaction of a bunch of people who have been selected for their ability to fit so neatly into the archetype of the mainstream consumer demographic. Most film-makers talk with nothing but contempt for the power the modern American studio places in this process - something that legitimises them as artistes, etc. Ironic, really, that for all the talk of his ego, Spurlock has no problem putting his away to respect quantifiable audience reactions. He wants his films to find that audience. He wants his message to get through. I think that’s a worthy attribute of any artist - particularly, for one who makes films fashioned as agents of social change.
By the interview’s end, we had also discussed the current politician mood in America, as it braces for its next crucial election (he noted the optimism, but seemed somewhat skeptical of Obama’s chances to, somewhat ironically, break through to the masses he needs to reach, in order to win); the argument that film-makers such as Moore and himself spoil a film by placing the spotlight too much on themselves (psychologically savvy, he recognised the function of the vicarious Everyman™; sighting the films’ ability to reach that audience being partly because he, through the style some call egocentric, “takes them by the hand”); reality television (again, somewhat defensive, after having his own TV series, 30 Days, categorised by press as “reality TV” - something he despises the falseness of), and whether or not Heath Ledger deserves an Oscar (he thinks he does).
And, that was that. He told me I should take my brother to see the film, and I assured him that I certainly would, and that I expected him to love it. Trouble is, after inquiring to the cinemas screening Where In The World Is Osama Bin Laden? (it opens next Thursday), it would seem that its theatrical run will fill mostly arthouse cinemas. My brother doesn’t go to those. He doesn’t know what they are. They certainly don’t have any, where he lives: three multiplexes, and the same six movies showing at all of them - that’s Regional Suburbia for you. It would seem the lefties are going to be the ones given this on the silver screen, after all. So far, that hasn’t particularly worked, very well.
And while it feels odd writing these words… God bless JB Hifi. No, really. Because in a couple of months from now, an awful lot of people - the kind who wonder if the dark skinned guy next door has a bomb in that van he drives - will be brushing their finger along the new release DVD titles, and somewhere, in between The Dark Knight and Ironman, will be Where In The World Is Osama Bin Laden? And that, despite the scowls of trendy film critics and cultured latte drinkers, is a fabulous thing.
“Thank you,” I smiled, shaking his hand - for once, in such a situation, actually meaning it. “I hope your film finds its audience.”
So should we all.
Originally published at Pop Psychology for Beautiful People.
This post is almost six thousand words long!!!!
Yay for longer posts!
Aaron offered to edit it, but I wanted to run it in full. Incidentally, when the blogosphere was in its early stages in Oz, the likes of Tim Dunlop used to write 7 000 word posts.
Moderator (as one who would say “Medic!!”), the new movie is identified in the introduction to this post as Where in the World is Obama Bin Laden.
I fear the propaganda is working.
Yikes! I blame tiredness and night lectures. I’ll fix it immediately!
Great post Aaron. Thank you for this insight into Morgan Spurlock. You write beautifully, I can hear the crowds at JB Hifi rifling through the specials bins.
Posts of that length and quality will put The Monthly out of business!
Ive read you for a while now. Your narratives are sometimes framed within the locus of the family. Your larger thematic concerns are always threaded into familial narratives which you return to - that of class origins, your insider/oustider status within that class. Your ultimate rejection of the attempts to condition you into that bogun stereotype, as you call it - a stereotype which your sibling has fully and uncritically embraced. This is coupled with your refusal to fully adhere to the lefty inner city positioning, no doubt because of your own originary otherness as you experienced it in working class Newcastle. However critical you can be of the excesses of your class origins, there is a genuineness in the characterisation of your brother and in your affection for the members of your family who have embraced what you cannot. You write neither condescendingly of what you left behind nor romantically of what you have at least partially embraced in Sydney. Its this double positioning that I most like about your writing. Your refusal to totally rescind the the past, your humanising of that originary culture coupled with your refusal to fully adopt a cultural elitist positioning which also can uncritically adopt a pose, inhabit a stereotype. Its a unique postion with which to view your wider subject. Which you have done here very well Aaron.
I like it Aaron.
Word, Casey.
A lot of what Aaron writes - exemplified in this post - exposes the artefactuality of the bogan/latte sipper distinction and through living its tensions also its “truthiness” as a means of constructing lived experience and assigning meanings to it - meaning in this sense not necessarily being a valorised term.
Mark and Casey: Are you each taking the mickey out of yourselves? or is this the way sociologists have learned to talk? or what ….
I had to stop to ponder “because of your own originary otherness”. but then came Mark’s “exposes the artefactuality of the bogan/latte sipper distinction….”
I don’t think Casey’s a sociologist, Russell, but sure after a while it comes naturally! I’m actually trying to use language relatively precisely. I can go back to sloppy on request.
Ah, i just read your comment on the other thread - you’re writing this stuff on automatic while doing other things - thus the jargon.
Holy shit. Elitist much? Think your choices are better than your brothers for the simple reason you think you’re more informed? “needed communicating to” applies to everyone who disparages bogan culture - if you think a large chunk of Australian society in particular lack introspection simply because they choose to be entertained, I’d rather not bother with the rest of the so-called informed analysis thanks very much.
Apparently I’m in the minority, but I can’t stand Aaron Darc’s writing, neither here nor at the old Eye. He’s obviously an intelligent individual, and I get the feeling that many of my political views would agree with his, but to read an extended piece of his writing (such as this one) is to be bombarded with smugness.
Darc is similar to Spurlock in his desire to insert himself into the story as often as possible. Forget principles like brevity or ’show, don’t tell’. Sorry, Aaron, but I find your writing to be prohibitively self-indulgent and unbearably pleased with itself.
Yes b-U-P = that too.
Further: Johnny Knoxville is this generations Normal Mailer. Discuss, with particular reference to “The Naked and the Dead”.
“prohibitively self-indulgent and unbearably pleased with itself” don’t worry Aaron, that just means reflective and autobiographical.
Irony, David, it’s irony!
I’m so ironied out, I can’t even tell whether I’m doing it any more. Drunk too.
I agree with BUP - I’m not sure where Aaron D is being ironic or just generalising in what I also find to be often a smug and condescending way. Or maybe I just can’t identify with Aaron’s moving between subjectivities, as Casey has pointed to.
I’d also expect that in a review, or at least an essay, of that length that there could have been more description of the movie itself. But I’ve run out of bandwidth so couldn’t download the movie clip which I guess is meant to do that job.
Admittedly it’s a very personal piece of writing, but I think it would be appropriate to move away from such personalised comments.
Fair enough. Sorry Aaron.
I have a problem with how the essay-interview (what genre is this - a sort of ethnography of cultural consumption?) positions me as a reader. John Frow mentioned the politics of enunciation in his critique of Gavin Kitching’s polemic on postmodernism in Australian Literary Review on Wednesday and I feel as though I’m being offered either a position of Inner-city Lefty or Bogan in AD’s essay. I think it’s interesting to unsettle these stereotypes through the different felt-experiences of class and cultural consumption but I don’t identify with the stereotypes in the first place, so being addressed as ‘you’ is irritating.
So I suppose I have a personal problem with the essay.
That said Aaron D writes well and has an engaging voice.
That’s fine, AG, I expect it
I’ll leave this now for everyone else. I hope it explains where it comes from, a little more. However, I don’t walk into kitchens, expecting them to be cold - so, please continue, regardless of which side of the isle you are on…
Can you not, however, look past a moment of enunciation, and position yourself as more “observer” between the two ID’s it uses? Ultimately, it’s a trade off, and I prefer the dynamic in work that, sometimes literally, speaks “to” its reader, when the writing has an intended target audience; so, thems the breaks, in some ways, when it comes to your existence outside of them (one of the reasons I thought it more suitable to this context than my own site). However, many times, I feel this reaction, in itself, is quite interesting, and one of the reasons I go ahead with that style. That’s personal, of course; you prefer a style that distances you, in that way - you reject its forced inclusion, in this instance. But what a very strong reaction, it must be said, for what is really - in such a long piece (as it has been pointed out) - ONE instance, later in the article. Why does this unhinge the entire thing, so much so that it becomes your main “gripe” with it, or how you project, perhaps, other gripes? Why are you uncomfortable with my asking you, in a single moment, whether you are on “either side of the isle” (as Spurlock put it)? Are you not a “Lefty”? Perhaps, you’re not “inner city” - but this seems trivial to me, also, hardly a reason to be so jilted. So, in fact, I think (you’ll disagree, I’m sure) that perhaps you do have a relationship with it, BECAUSE of the very thing you dislike about it. That’s actually fine with me, regardless of whether your reaction is adverse, or not. I like that it makes you put yourself into it - which is what you have now done, after all (regardless of whether you do subscribe more to one of those stereotypes, or if you truly are outside of them entirely), whether you like it, or… well…. not. I actually find it quite unlikely that anyone would happily conceptually place themselves in that “you”, when I am, in that moment, being so harsh on the “you”. In fact, I’d expect the very people it addresses, to be the ones having the most emotive response to it.
In some ways, it’s very similar to a critique being that I have the audacity to use my own experiences. BOP, you are quite right that I have this in common with Spurlock - I do completely agree with the power of the personal, because the idea that anything is “not”, to me, is absurd. It’s why though I loved my time at uni, I ultimately decided not to spend the rest of my days there (as I had once considered), because I was not interested in the cultivation of communication that aimed to create the illusion of objectivity. You can learn to use a language, abide by some code of what “is” and “isn’t” writing (such as AG’s frustration in not being able to classify my writing as a genre….. why would you need to? What difference does that make?) but it’s only a deception through language. You cannot approach anything in your life that does not, ultimately, be processed through a conceptual relationship you have with the stimuli (in this case, my perceptions of Spurlock) based on the personal. Some might say that to put yourself in a piece dilutes it, distorts it - I say it makes it much more powerful and, more importantly, more honest. Why would I want to erase the truth of my connection with the language of objectivity? It would be, in the true sense of the word, pretentious. Even if you could approach something objectively (which I don’t, for a second, believe in), what would it achieve? Would I transcend my Self? Oh, what an aspiration! Why would I want to become removed from my Self? My understanding of both the need to communicate with a mindset my “Lefty brothers” don’t do terribly well - and my understanding of Spurlock’s work - comes from the personal. Anything else would be a lie, and I think would ultimately produce a shallow piece of work that would truly be smug, because I’d have the audacity to somehow think I communicate what I communicate with complete intellectual objectivity. There’s your irony.
When I’m being “smug” (by BOP’s definition), fine, I’m being smug - I make no apologies for that. You can see it, because I let you - again, I’d rather that, than a “successful” piece of writing that manages to convince the reader it’s in any way not acting out of egocentricity of some description. We write to persuade, to affect; because we are all “smug” (again, if this is your definition of the word), at the end of the day, and we all think we have the goods. This idea that for me to suggest I have something I feel is worthy of communication is somehow negative (or even unique) is ridiculous - more so, coming from someone, in a moment where they think they have something so worthy (a usurping of my intended impact, let’s get real) - of course, I do. The article is actually “about” (partly) the struggle, the battle, that is inherit in all communication and persuasion. Why does it make you so uncomfortable that someone has the audacity to… well…. be real about that intention?
David, do I think I’m more “informed” than my brother? Sure. I could pretend I don’t, subscribing to some idea that this is wrong of me, and all… but it would be a lie. I’m sorry, but I could have sworn this entire website essentially works off the basis that “we” are more informed - more “right” - than the “other”. I embrace that - even if it is supposedly wrong in some way (and, of course, it is deeply flawed), because I don’t believe you will ever get anywhere with that confound by pretending it isn’t the case. Why does it get under your skin, so much, that someone has the hide to be so personal and upfront in their (subjective) position? It says a lot about me, sure, but perhaps it also says as much about you? Regardless, you obviously believe something very different than I do. And, you know, that’s fine. Perhaps, you’re letting the wrong people persuade you.
Thankyou Casey, and others, too
Oh, and I actually forgot what I came here for! (but that was, ultimately, more stimulating anyway, so thanks!).
The interview can be listened to at
[link]
This article is really a companion piece to the interview (which will be aired in packages on 2SER, throughout next week - on Celluloid Dreams and Fourth Estate), so it’s good to have heard it, if you’re interested. Also, before anyone starts on it, this link is a (largely) unedited piece that includes our informal ending - so before anyone starts on how it turns into anything BUT an interview, I am quite aware of that, thanks (I just left it in for the film buffs and Spurlock fans - you won’t be hearing that part on radio). Cheers
“Anything else would be a lie, and I think would ultimately produce a shallow piece of work that would truly be smug, because I’d have the audacity to somehow think I communicate what I communicate with complete intellectual objectivity. There’s your irony.”
Someone who works in advertising talking about lies? There’s your irony…
I didn’t see the film at MIFF, so I can’t commet directly about it. But I wasn’t a fan of ‘Supersize Me’. Someone who’s opinion I respect did see it and thought it was very confused in terms of who the audience is. If you’re a knowledgeable ‘lefty’ then it’s not telling you anything you don’t already know and it’s doing so in a fairly uninteresting way. If you’re one of the Great Bogan Unwashed, specifically in America, then using sub-titles means that audience won’t watch it.
Sorry, but I don’t find this sort of writing about film very useful. I’m more interested in writing that is actually about the film, especially when it’s written by someone who has a deep understanding of film. Just as you get experts about any other subject really.
I haven’t seen Where in the World is Osama bin Laden, but I’ve seen both Super Size Me and Spurlock’s TV show ‘30 Days’, and I think part of his discomfort at being interpellated as a lefty - by reviewers, interviewers, commentators, both pro and anti his work - is that he doesn’t consider himself to be on the left. Which makes his love for blockbusters (which I share, even as an outer suburbs lefty), his seeming blindness to certain contradictions in his position (a fair bit of Super Size Me seems to be complaining that families today don’t spend enough time making sure the kids are fed ‘proper’ nutritious food, in ways that reinscribe the normative positions as to who should be doing so) and his love of stuff like the computer graphics much more understandable, since I’m not having to do mental gymnastics to reconcile those elements with the politics I incorrectly think he’s pushing.
Glen,
I have nothing to say about your blindness and presumptions based on your connection to a concept like “advertising”. I understand where it comes from, but you do the maths wrong, and you come off as just ignorant. You’re so hung up on hating advertising (you’ve made the same point in another thread, yes?), that whenever you hear the word, you’re all emotion and no rationale.
Fine,
this is not an article “about the film”, as such. It’s not a review or a critique of the film, and was never intended to be. I could roll off my credentials for you as a voice on film, bla, bla, yawn, bla, but they are redundant in this article, anyway. The great thing about mainstream audiences is that they are open to anything that clicks with them, away from tired academic concepts of authority, which I find many people here are far too hung up on (not surprisingly).
Rod,
I find your comments really interesting, because on the one hand, you’re wrong - he is pushing those politics! At the end of the day, he is - particularly with this film, though (so, since you’ve seen the others, perhaps you’ll watch this one). There is a school of this kind of leftism beginning to grow - a division that is challenging various stereotypes and, what I think is great, showing up how the cliched “Left” see themselves as owning certain politics that must be subscribed to in various ways. So, he was uncomfortable when I positioned the both of us as “Left”, but then changed his attitude (and I left most of the off-the-record stuff… well…. off the record) once we had established our “left” politics as not being derived from the usual avenues, etc. Which is true of me, also, after all. How can you say that a man who makes such material - with such messages - is not ideologically left, just because he does not fit into ultimately superficial cues of what you consider that to be? You, yourself, like blockbusters, but then you attribute his love for them as “explaining” that he is not a lefty. So I think the Left you guys “adhere” to is conceptual - I would go as far as calling it subcultural - more so than it is a consequence of ideology that results from a personal connection with the world around you. So much so, that despite a man who makes material with clear messages that (however you can argue the finer details about certain aspects) are clearly, clearly left, you put forward that he is not, in fact, a “Lefty” anyway. What an easy way out! You opt out of reconciling this, and effectively rob his work of its meaning, because you focus on the model of communication - his language - rather than his message. Which, for his intended audience, is - as he also intends - quite simple. I suppose it’s a trade off. Haven’t “The Left” been wanting people to stop believing the advertising propaganda of multinationals? Doesn’t the Left spend a great deal of time carrying on about the propaganda of Islamaphobia? Okay, so he doesn’t deal with complex models of thought and analysis, and he leaves stuff out, etc, etc, and you can oull apart his arguments easily. But I think he’s happy with the result. It’s not that he isn’t Left - he’s just not talking TO the left. And I love that about him, because I’m so frustrated with a culture that is so oppositional, but has actually become stunted in being oppositional in a way that nobody is ever really doing anything about that. He is criticised for self-indulgence, but I find the “Left” self-indulgent, because it’s only ever having a conversation with itself. Which would be fine, except it’s founded on all these ideas - implied, or otherwise - about “social change”, bla, bla, bla. But that’s a fantasy, I don’t think most lefties understand the first thing about social change, I don’t think their egos allow them to understand “how” to engage social change. So it becomes observational (to use a kinder term than I often use), and not in any way pro-active.
Look at the comment by Fine; “If you’re a knowledgeable ‘lefty’ then it’s not telling you anything you don’t already know and it’s doing so in a fairly uninteresting way. If you’re one of the Great Bogan Unwashed, specifically in America, then using sub-titles means that audience won’t watch it.” I’m sorry, Fine, but I just want to scream, when I read that. It’s not the slightest bit confused… hello…. it ISN’T talking to knowledgeable lefties (did you actually read or listen to the interview, by any chance?) and to say that a few subtitles , here and there, mean it cannot possibly address the mainstream is a bit rich. It’s kind of valid, but totally misplaced, because the film is mostly in English, and is branding with a complete absence of subtitles. He clearly tries to balance out that, by housing it in over-the-top Americana - another important function of his presence in the film as an “everyman”. So, your friend is, apparently, no “expert.”
Of course, all these responses actually mirror the article’s actual point. So, sincerely, thanks. That’s why I thought this article would work on this website. If you could get over your perceived irony, Glen, maybe you’d see that. That’s the thing about us evil advertising people - the response is part of the actual material.
As it is, here
“That’s the thing about us evil advertising people - the response is part of the actual material.”
No it’s not.
Hence the phrase “actual material”, whose sole pupose is to distinguish a thing from various related things.
Sorry if that seems pedantic. It’s really not. Without categories and precision, we can have no discussion. If you want to say that the discussion is part of the thing being discussed, you are simply wrong. It’s the other way around.
Eye, I didn’t say my friend was an ‘expert’. I said she was someone who’s opinion I respected. So, you may wish to read more clearly.
‘The great thing about mainstream audiences is that they are open to anything that clicks with them, away from tired academic concepts of authority, which I find many people here are far too hung up on (not surprisingly).’ Sorry, the tired concepts of authority apply because people who spend their lives talking, reading, writing and thinking about something do tend to have more sophisticted, nuanced and knowledgeable opinions about a subject. Apply your argument to science, medicine and engineering and it immediately falls down. Just like a bridge built by soemeone who isn’t an engineer.
As well as this your confusing two categories. Audiences and writers. Of course audiences don’t need qualifications. I’d suggest that it’s better if writers do.
“Okay, so he doesn’t deal with complex models of thought and analysis, and he leaves stuff out, etc, etc, and you can oull apart his arguments easily.’ As I said, I haven’t seen the film so I can’t comment directly. But it sounds as if you don’t have a lot of faith in his audiences. Apparently they can’t deal with complex models of thought. Bit patronising and a bit contradictory. It also makes the film seem of rather dubious value.
As to whether ‘mainstream’ audiences (a particularly slippery concept at the best of time) are comfortable with sub-titles, I’d suggest that they tend not to be. I wonder whether you have any evidence to suggest otherwise. Or is it just your opinion?
I do understand what you’re saying, FBD (I completely understand where you’re coming from), and I probably should have used a better term, yes. But maybe the “material” isn’t complete until the related reactions become “part” of it. I published this on my own site, but didn’t get the same (negative) reactions. So, I offered it to Mark, and… now, I feel the article is complete. I’m giving a speech, soon, to a group of young lefty wannabe revolutionary writers, etc, etc, ETC, and I will be showing them this article, including these comments. This will be “the material” I give them. I don’t think these comments are “related”, I see them as PART of it. If I had not received them, I would have been rather disappointed. I’m fascinated by blogging, because of this aspect; so, to me, these responses are now inseparable to the article, itself. It is now “the material”, because I provoked those responses. And isn’t that what’s really behind people who comment on forum boards with such negativity? Don’t they want to become part of the material? To become part of how others perceive the material as a whole? Wish granted. Another article that referenced this would be “related material” - but these comments are, to me, very much part of this, now.
And sorry, Fine, my mistake - I took it for granted from the way you so carefully threw in the concept of “expert”, that these were the people you only gave validity to. Experts and friends, no less. Alas, to you, I am neither. *sigh* However, your somewhat presumptuous, because I can throw at you many qualifications, experience,. etc, to quantify my voice. You presume I have no experience or qualifications, simply because I do not subscribe to the ridiculous mode of “intellectual” discourse where I need to throw my “qualifications” into everything I write. Perhaps, I should have talked about my three uni degrees, my first class honours, my masters, the years I have spent working in related fields, the articles I’ve had published, bla, bla, BLAAAAA (yawn). I actually don’t think it’s relevant. And, as I said, it’s not a film review or critique, so why should I need to? I don’t think your comments say too much about me, really - because you’ve got me so wrong, anyway - it says more about the value system you use - one where, unless someone qualifies as what you consider to be an “expert” (so subjective, someone may be given the power of truth by you on a subject you don’t even know about - because you haven’t seen it - simply because they are a “friend”… or there is some kind of expertise that exists, then, outside of these concepts of yours?), you try to invalidate an opinion as being effectively beneath yours. Which is great, because you’re so indicative of the problems of the elitist left. You just spit on people with your concepts of intellectual validity and authority…. whenever you don’t agree with what someone says, or it challenges you, or doesn’t fit in with your agenda. And it’s vile, because it suggests that life gives one no qualifications, that experiential engagement means nothing, that you were of no value before you became “qualified”, and that’s so integral to how the mainstyream are treated by the Left, who are so hung up on their puffy chests and armor, they’ve never stopped to give any thought to any concept of life that exists outside it (which, for these people, is all that does). And, of course, if you agreed with what you read, you wouldn’t feel me so unqualified - even though the absence of whatever it is that’s missing to let you “know” I’m “qualified” would be no different.
But if I ever decide to build a bridge, I’ll make sure I get the right degree.
And your statement, “As well as this your confusing two categories. Audiences and writers. Of course audiences don’t need qualifications. I’d suggest that it’s better if writers do” is just more transparent dribble. You’re so passive aggressive, Fine, I wish you’d just get a spine, really.
And I’ve already said that the film actually has very few subtitles and is deliberately marketed without any…. maybe you should read my post “more clearly.”
You really don’t like someone disgreeing with you, do you Eye?
You seem to be working on a dichotomy between the ‘elitist Left’ which sucks big time, and the Rest, which his where all truth and validity lies. At the same time you patronise the Rest by implying that they don’t need or couldn’t understand complex arguments.
I notice that you haven’t addressed any of my arguments. Just got angry because someone questions your authority, which is odd for someone arguing against authoritative arguments.
What does ‘passive aggressive’ even mean? What does that have to do with any of my arguments?
That spray from Eye at #30 was incredibly baffling. I pity the “group of young lefty wannabe revolutionary writers, etc, etc, ETC”, who it seems will shortly be on the receiving end of another.
I too am baffled. Why is LP hosting this person’s writing when they are clearly seeking only to produce a stoush with regular commenters?
Well, I hope that wasn’t the intention! It’s a different intention from seeking to challenge some ideas, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I agree the spray against Fine was uncalled for.
I know, Laura, poor buggers! I won’t spray them, I promise, I reserve that for comment threads when I’ve had too many Friday spliffs.
Fine, firstly, let it be known that I am not “angry”. Really, I’m not. I think the thread is done, now, so I think it’s fine for me to talk about the context of my post responses.
In your first post, and placed it in a context of “writing about film”, because, implicitly, it was not a “useful” style of writing about film by an “expert.” You felt the need to write that, yeah? It had some point to it. And I’m fascinated by the motivation behind the kind of arguments to be found on threads like these - as I said, that was part of why I was interested to see its reaction, here. And part of this is what is really behind you needing to come out with that first post - what was the point of the post? Even the bit about your friend was part of the “bigger” picture, which was to use this space to discredit the argument put forward. Which is partly what the article is about. And yes, I find this to be a passive kind of aggression, because it is quite aggressive in its function (even though you may say your language, etc, was not aggressive). So, yeah, I went you and you went me back. And that’s what these spaces on websites are, as I was saying before in another post: they’re arenas that, when they become friction (as opposed to people just saying “great post”, or whatever), are really about a need to mar something based on a relationship you have with the text that triggers a need to interject and try to color others’ perceptions of it. It’s not really between you and me, after all - you didn’t address your post to me - it’s for others. Your putting your stamp on it. The most absurd post is that of someone who says, “This post is a waste of time”…. so they spent more time constructing the post?! Similar to “This post is too long for me to read”, etc. I’m not saying that’s what your post was, but you felt a need to discredit the post, from (because this is Larvatusprodeo, after all) a leftist perspective, and - even more importantly - a proactive perspective (because you actually want to change things, in one way, you’re not content to be passive and, since you dont get anything from it, ignore it). Now, this is all very relevant to my argument and observations of what we see in the instance of Murlock.
Now, your responses fascinate me because they use concepts like “expert”, “evidence”, your defense of the concept of intellectual authority. These are all things that I believe do not work, when it comes to the Left approaching the mainstream in any form of communication, because the “other”, here, does not adhere to these sort of concepts. They don’t listen to academics, they listen to Oprah. They vote in politicians who have very little expertise. And it’s also something used against Spurlock. In this case, of course, you’re using it against ME.
Now, you say I didn’t respond to your arguments. Yet in the first instance, even when I explained the context of subtitles in this film (that your friend had misrepresented it and oversimplified its relevance) you pushed on with this - in fact, you quoted every other part of my discussion, except this part where I had responded to your argument. You returned to the question of subtitles asking me to…. quantify it! “Or is it just your opinion?” you asked. Ouch. Cause my opinion doesn’t count, right? How dare I act like an empirical entity. What expertise would I have to suggest it? (an awful lot of time involved in demographic research and statistics, but whatever) Because I had already stated that the subtitles argument didn’t apply, because they are not sitting down to a subtitled movie, and it’s kept mostly in English.
So what I really wanted to see is the various ways the vocal components of Left contexts like this one actually responded to an argument that is made using things that do not conform to standard lefty methods, and in a space where I could actually SEE it, EXPERIENCE it. You push me, I push back, you push me, I push back. I wanted some examples of left responses to this particular argument, in the hope they will provide something that actually illustrates much of this topic of “left vs right” that I am currently fascinated with. The more personal attacks at the beginning were wonderful, but yours is an interesting instance because you hide the personal in language and concepts that are put forward in a way that does, I feel, represent a leftist approach to the struggle: validation of intellectual authority. But it is actually quite “personal”, of course. So, I just bombarded you - told you to get a spine - to see what it would do (sorry to put you through it, Laura). You felt it perfectly acceptable to take the time to discredit this, originally (even about a film you haven’t seen yourself!), so I feel that’s only fair.
But you can’t move away from your mechanics. You alter them, they intensify - but they’re still based around concepts of intellectual authority, to the point where you now put forward that I am “someone arguing against authoritative arguments”, which I’m not really, at all. YOU think the arguments I argue against are authoritative - I never said they were authoritative, as such, as any kind of problem. All I’ve said is that everyone is trying to be authoritative, in some ways, and questioned why anything had more or less authority than anything else.
I haven’t responded to your argument that I patronise the Rest, no, you’re right there. I have explained that before, though. But that’s interesting, because I do hear that all the time. I often wonder, “Do these people actually think that the Rest ’should’ be able to understand things on their terms?” Because, they can’t. I don’t see why I’m patronising them, by saying that. Some people attacked Spurlock’s movie because it “simplified” middle eastern history - which he did because, like me, he knows what they can and cannot digest. Is he patronising them, by doing that? Is he not respecting them, in another way, depending on how you look at it? Don’t they deserve someone who bothers to communicate something that - almost empathetically - understands how they interpret and understand things? And isn’t it the wish of every lefty that The Rest start to understand some of its arguments?
I think maybe what it is, is a way you try to discredit my position by sort of casting me as a baddie that is actually on nobody’s side, to devalue any communicative impact I may have on the Rest, anyway, because, hey, I’m actually being mean and horrible to them, too.
Anyway, it’s been an exhausting and interesting experience, and my fingers are now well and truly about to fall off. I’m sure this article will now fade into the archive pages and this thread die down, so don’t worry, you can have your retort without any fear of me writing another essay back! I think I’m done. But thanks, really, it really has been a preferred response for me (on all accounts - I thought Casey and Mark’s comments, etc, were great, too) than I can find with this material in other contexts where I don’t get this interaction.
Cheers
Hmmm, I think what’s at issue here is the idea of “lefty contexts”. I’m not sure this is the same sort of lefty context that Eye is thinking of in terms of lefty contexts. Perhaps there’s a figure at work here that’s not being examined critically or self-reflexively?
Sorry, Mark, I didn’t see your comments at #34, I must have been posting while you posted, etc. Look, I apologise for “spraying” Fine - my “volume” was perhaps partly driven by the fact that I do tend to hit harder when people are being what I think is deceptively or passively aggressive, and I think Fine’s comments were, I’ve got to say. It was done smarter than the more “personal attacks” in the beginning, but its the same dynamic at play.
I find a fine line between “seeking only to produce a stoush with regular commenters” and “challenging ideas”. If someone writes something and it’s “okay” for people to respond with attacks to it (which, apparently, it is), is it any less okay if someone writes that piece knowing they’ll be attacked for it? Attacked for the piece, by the people who the piece talks about attacking another piece? Why is it suddenly unfair, just because (in revealing it) I take the power away from the attacker? What, I have no right to attack back? Or to provoke for purpose? Isn’t that part of challenging ideas? Aren’t you, then, being truly challenged, instead of just pseudo-challenged (like so much so called “challenging” material really is)? Being challenged is actually really uncomfortable. It isn’t walking out of an R-rated French arthouse film, saying, “Oh, darling, he makes such challenging films”. The article was a challenge to some people, yes. If you don’t want to be in a stoush, then, quite frankly, communicate something that is not an attack designed to invalidate someone on the basis of various character assassinations. That’s a pretty sure way to end up in a stoush, I would say. Because none of those negative comments were discussing the actual article’s issues DIRECTLY… nobody dared discuss the content - why do that, when you can find less…. self-confronting ways to devalue it? If you can do that, you don’t HAVE to deal with it, right? AG doesn’t have to, because I used “You” in one sentence. Rod doesn’t have to do any mental gymnastics because Spurlock isn’t really a lefty anyway, so the whole thing is on a false principle. Fine doesn’t have to, because he/she only listens to “experts”, of which I apparently am not. Glen doesn’t have to think about it, because I’m from advertising, so I must be a liar (talk about “lefty contexts”!). Laura thought it was too long. David thought he could have a swipe after just three paragraphs, and simply refused to read it. Funny, what some people do, when they’re being challenged. And then when I finally get hard and tell someone to get a spine, my God, you’d think I’d opened an M16 on everyone, and it’s finally declared I don’t like people challenging me!!!!!! I’m drowning in irony… aren’t you?!
And it’s only one part of it. I also respect those who were positive in the comments, and I respect the vastly larger number of people reading this who will (as happens on websites) say nothing at all. And I completely respect people who disagree with me, because I’m completely against the illusion of authority from anyone in any sort of absolute way. But what I knew was that, here, I would receive a certain kind of negative response that is, I think, very indicative of a problem people have with The Left. Why shouldn’t the Left challenge itself? It certainly likes to challenge everything else. Someone called me smug, but… well… didn’t I kind of beat them to it, in the article, if I recall? There’s another irony there I will keep all to myself. So, yeah, I prodded. Whether that’s an acceptable challenge or a terribly immoral act of causing trouble, is entirely subjective (and for some, I would say, based on collectivist notions of identity, and where you feel I’ve placed you in relation to mine).
Oh now I understand Eye. It was all just an experiment to see how people would respond. And you got what you needed apparently. Good on you. I wonder if you question your own assumptions as well as other peoples? I see no evidence that you do from your writing.
As for the sub-title issue, I may well have that wrong. As I said several times, I was reporting something I’ve heard. It may be wrong. But I’d suggest that’s no reason to jump done someone’s throat. You could simply say so. Although, after reading your writing, I think I’d prefer to trust my ‘friend’s’ opinion.
Your answer to my question as to how why the Rest should get badly thought through arguments in a documentary, is that that’s all they’ll understand. Somehow, you and Morgan just ‘know’ that. How do you ‘know’ that? You actually can’t write that without some sort of argument to support that proposition. Why can’t you make a documentary which is funny, entertaining and well-argued? Difficult I know. But it’s the least we should expect. But I don’t think you’ll be interested in answering that question, as you’ve finished your experiment now.
“Perhaps there’s a figure at work here that’s not being examined critically or self-reflexively?” Yes, Mark. I’d say it’s Eye’s representation of the Rest who are too dumb to understand complex arguments and too dumb not to be able to see through weak ones. I call bullshit on Eye’s ‘understanding’ of the Rest.
“But it is actually quite “personal”, of course. So, I just bombarded you - told you to get a spine - to see what it would do (sorry to put you through it, Laura). You felt it perfectly acceptable to take the time to discredit this, originally (even about a film you haven’t seen yourself!), so I feel that’s only fair.”
And Mark, you did get a guest poster whose purpose was to create a stoush for resarch purposes. Maybe he misrepresented himself to you.
And frankly, given the manipulativeness of Eye, I call bullshit on his apology.